FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2316657813> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2316657813 endingPage "910" @default.
• W2316657813 startingPage "909" @default.
• W2316657813 abstract "Although Cytometry defines itself as the science and technology of a quantitative single cell analysis and is a key technology in the field of immunology, cancer biology and more, benchmarking of frequently done and important measurements is still an ongoing issue and a major source of uncertainty. Referring to internationally accepted standards such as the “International Prototype Meter” maintained by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in France, the organization that includes member institutions from 17 nations and meets regularly to upgrade these standards since 1875, is still a view into the future for cytometrists. Several reasons are accounting for this lack. These reasons lay on the one hand in the diverse technical solutions to perform cytometric analysis by flow and image cytometry with a substantial variance in optical paths, light sources, optical filters and detectors. On the other hand a plethora of applications exists from cell phenotyping over functional analysis to the quantitation of microbes and sub-micron particles that would profit from internationally accepted standards. In the era of large scale cytomics cohort studies like the Euroflow 1, the GEIL 2, the ONE 3, the LIFE 4, and the HOM SWEET HOMe (Heterogeneity of Monocytes in Subjects Who Undergo Elective Coronary Angiography) 5, the need for benchmarking becomes evident. Benchmarking is essential to transport knowledge gained from these types of investigation to other institutions and laboratories in order to gain and extract reliable and reproducible information from cellular data. Such high level of standardization and quality control is relevant for example to ensure that the differences between studies on gender, age, life-style or geographic region are not merely due to technical differences. This unification is essential for the development of future strategies for diagnosis, predictive medicine and individualized therapy. Beyond that, standardization and benchmarking are also highly desirable from basic cellular research to quantitation of biocoenosis of microorganisms in their natural habitat for environmental protection and ecology. Fortunately, several research groups including those from large governmental organizations took over the effort to benchmark specific critical analytical areas in cytometry. These organizations include metrological intuitions like the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA) and the PTB (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany). The topics addressed are for example the quantitative cell viability measurement by flow and image cytometry 6 and the benchmarking of fluorescence intensity measurements per cell (MFI, mean fluorescence intensity). The latter is of high relevance, as it reflects cell activation values that can be of diagnostic relevance as shown in numerous studies but their cross-platform validation is challenging. In a NIST/ISAC study, Hoffman and colleagues 7 presented approaches to use commercial beads for MFI calibration but they also pinpointed the problems arising from their improper use. Solly and colleagues 2 from the GEIL study investigated ways for cross-platform comparison of MFI values between two different instruments and five centers. In this issue, Halter and colleagues from NIST (this issue, page 978) investigated ways to standardize fluorescence microscopy intensity measurements for image cytometry. They report that using commercially available fluorescent glasses that are highly photostable in combination with an automated protocol is appropriate for intensity calibration of one instrument type over time. However, they also elaborate that due to various technical differences between fluorescence microscopes, a cross-platform standardization cannot be achieved if the optical settings are different. Another critical point next to benchmarking of the measurement process is the reproducible data analysis. In image cytometry the first line of data analysis is identification and segmentation of cells from digital images 8. This procedure then yields complex single cell data comparable to what is obtained by flow cytometry. In the case of high-dimensional polychromatic flow cytometry data sequential manual gating clearly produces a biased approach to reading the data based on individual preferences of each reader 3, 4. This bias needs to be reduced if not eliminated by automation. An automated and unsupervised data analysis that was thoroughly tested and reviewed by Aghaeepour et al. 9 would be an ideal solution but it is still under development. Here, Frederiksen and colleagues (this issue, page 969) report a web-based system for analyzing complex flow cytometry data, NetFCM. They used leukocytes from HIV infected individuals that were challenged with HIV or CMV peptides. NetFCM was able to distinguish virus specific responses from the study samples as well as in a test set obtained from the FlowCAP II study 9. Mixed microbial populations are indeed challenging with regard to data analysis, sample preparation and storage. Koch et al. addressed this issue by developing software for unsupervised analysis of complex microbial communities and recently comparing it with other data analysis tools 10, 11. With regard to preservation of natural samples Marie and colleagues (this issue, page 962) designed an improved protocol for their storage and measurement. A combination of numerous successful standardization efforts are needed to yield a reliable global survey of environmental changes. And this brings me to possibly the largest challenge in sample analysis, namely, the impact of pre-analytics including the sample collection, labelling, storage and transport. The improper sample handling causes an exceedingly larger error compared to that resulting from the data acquisition and analysis as determined in many large-scale studies (see for example references 3, 4). The error for immunophenotyping experiments can be estimated at roughly 50%. Such differences render substantial errors in multicentric and follow-up studies and require a lot of effort to develop “universal” standards such as reliable and generally accepted model cells for benchmarking cell staining and preparation." @default.
• W2316657813 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2316657813 creator A5029537086 @default.
• W2316657813 date "2014-10-20" @default.
• W2316657813 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2316657813 title "Benchmarking cytometry" @default.
• W2316657813 cites W150221401 @default.
• W2316657813 cites W1590565521 @default.
• W2316657813 cites W1908196622 @default.
• W2316657813 cites W1967287127 @default.
• W2316657813 cites W2025375193 @default.
• W2316657813 cites W2033584863 @default.
• W2316657813 cites W2043337411 @default.
• W2316657813 cites W2112493011 @default.
• W2316657813 cites W2114210543 @default.
• W2316657813 cites W2151829671 @default.
• W2316657813 cites W2158453778 @default.
• W2316657813 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.22576" @default.
• W2316657813 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25331836" @default.
• W2316657813 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2316657813 type Work @default.
• W2316657813 sameAs 2316657813 @default.
• W2316657813 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2316657813 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2316657813 hasAuthorship W2316657813A5029537086 @default.
• W2316657813 hasBestOaLocation W23166578131 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C188087704 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C203014093 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C2780339063 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C553184892 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConcept C86251818 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C111919701 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C144133560 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C162853370 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C188087704 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C19527891 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C203014093 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C2522767166 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C2780339063 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C41008148 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C553184892 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C71924100 @default.
• W2316657813 hasConceptScore W2316657813C86251818 @default.
• W2316657813 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W2316657813 hasLocation W23166578131 @default.
• W2316657813 hasLocation W23166578132 @default.
• W2316657813 hasOpenAccess W2316657813 @default.
• W2316657813 hasPrimaryLocation W23166578131 @default.
• W2316657813 hasRelatedWork W1848359393 @default.
• W2316657813 hasRelatedWork W2112624144 @default.
• W2316657813 hasRelatedWork W2127025027 @default.
• W2316657813 hasRelatedWork W2355668720 @default.
• W2316657813 hasRelatedWork W2363740405 @default.
• W2316657813 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2316657813 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2316657813 hasRelatedWork W2999063186 @default.
• W2316657813 hasRelatedWork W3009603553 @default.
• W2316657813 hasRelatedWork W4285804661 @default.
• W2316657813 hasVolume "85" @default.
• W2316657813 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2316657813 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2316657813 magId "2316657813" @default.
• W2316657813 workType "article" @default.