Reproducible scoring of CFU-GM and BFU-E grown in collagen-based semisolid medium after a short (3 h) training.

I Dobo, J M Bidet, S Acquart, A Allegraud, L Amiot, C Boccaccio, N Boiret, J Domenech, P Mossuz, L Sensebe, E Wunder, M Zandecki, S Hermouet
{"title":"Reproducible scoring of CFU-GM and BFU-E grown in collagen-based semisolid medium after a short (3 h) training.","authors":"I Dobo,&nbsp;J M Bidet,&nbsp;S Acquart,&nbsp;A Allegraud,&nbsp;L Amiot,&nbsp;C Boccaccio,&nbsp;N Boiret,&nbsp;J Domenech,&nbsp;P Mossuz,&nbsp;L Sensebe,&nbsp;E Wunder,&nbsp;M Zandecki,&nbsp;S Hermouet","doi":"10.1089/106161299320569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Colony counting remains an important source of variation in colony-forming unit-granulocyte-macrophage (CFU-GM) assays performed in methylcellulose or agar. We studied the reliability of colony scoring of CFU-GM assays carried out with collagen, a matrix that allows gel collection on glass slides and in situ cellular morphology. Fourteen slides were exchanged among laboratories, and two rounds of colony (CFU-GM and burst-forming units-erythrocyte [BFU-E]) counting were performed by 11 (first counting), then 8 (second counting) different laboratories, the majority of which had no previous experience of collagen gel cultures and reading. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the first round of colony counting showed significant differences among centers in CFU-GM counts (p = 0.023) but not in BFU-E counts (p = 0.163). Coefficients of variation for the 14 slides ranged from 22% to 50% (median 28%) for CFU-GM counts and from 12% to 74% (median 23%) for BFU-E counts. After a 3 h session of collective colony reading attended by members of 8 laboratories, a second round of colony counting was performed. This time, ANOVA showed no significant difference among centers for CFU-GM (p = 0.533) and BFU-E (p = 0.328) counts, and coefficients of variation were significantly improved, with medians of 17% for CFU-GM counts and 20% for BFU-E counts. In addition, when data from the second round of readings were analyzed without the 2 centers counting consistently low (center 8) or consistently high (center 5), variance among centers was further improved for both CFU-GM (p = 0.798) and BFU-E (p = 0.619). In summary, this study shows for the first time that reproducible BFU-E and CFU-GM scoring can be achieved using collagen-based semisolid medium (now commercially available) as long as adequate training in colony identification is provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":77208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hematotherapy","volume":"8 1","pages":"45-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/106161299320569","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hematotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/106161299320569","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Colony counting remains an important source of variation in colony-forming unit-granulocyte-macrophage (CFU-GM) assays performed in methylcellulose or agar. We studied the reliability of colony scoring of CFU-GM assays carried out with collagen, a matrix that allows gel collection on glass slides and in situ cellular morphology. Fourteen slides were exchanged among laboratories, and two rounds of colony (CFU-GM and burst-forming units-erythrocyte [BFU-E]) counting were performed by 11 (first counting), then 8 (second counting) different laboratories, the majority of which had no previous experience of collagen gel cultures and reading. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the first round of colony counting showed significant differences among centers in CFU-GM counts (p = 0.023) but not in BFU-E counts (p = 0.163). Coefficients of variation for the 14 slides ranged from 22% to 50% (median 28%) for CFU-GM counts and from 12% to 74% (median 23%) for BFU-E counts. After a 3 h session of collective colony reading attended by members of 8 laboratories, a second round of colony counting was performed. This time, ANOVA showed no significant difference among centers for CFU-GM (p = 0.533) and BFU-E (p = 0.328) counts, and coefficients of variation were significantly improved, with medians of 17% for CFU-GM counts and 20% for BFU-E counts. In addition, when data from the second round of readings were analyzed without the 2 centers counting consistently low (center 8) or consistently high (center 5), variance among centers was further improved for both CFU-GM (p = 0.798) and BFU-E (p = 0.619). In summary, this study shows for the first time that reproducible BFU-E and CFU-GM scoring can be achieved using collagen-based semisolid medium (now commercially available) as long as adequate training in colony identification is provided.

短时间(3小时)训练后,在胶原基半固体培养基中培养的CFU-GM和BFU-E可重复评分。
在甲基纤维素或琼脂中进行的集落形成单位-粒细胞-巨噬细胞(CFU-GM)测定中,菌落计数仍然是变异的重要来源。我们研究了用胶原蛋白进行的CFU-GM测定的菌落评分的可靠性,胶原蛋白是一种允许在玻片和原位细胞形态上收集凝胶的基质。实验室间交换14张载玻片,分别在11个(第一次计数)和8个(第二次计数)不同实验室进行两轮菌落(CFU-GM和burst-forming unit -erythrocyte [BFU-E])计数,其中大多数实验室之前没有胶原凝胶培养和阅读的经验。第一轮菌落计数的双向方差分析(ANOVA)显示,中心间CFU-GM计数有显著差异(p = 0.023), BFU-E计数无显著差异(p = 0.163)。14张载玻片CFU-GM计数的变异系数为22% - 50%(中位数28%),BFU-E计数的变异系数为12% - 74%(中位数23%)。8个实验室的成员参加了3小时的集体菌落阅读后,进行第二轮菌落计数。这一次,方差分析显示中心间CFU-GM计数(p = 0.533)和BFU-E计数(p = 0.328)无显著差异,变异系数显著提高,CFU-GM计数中位数为17%,BFU-E计数中位数为20%。此外,当对第二轮读数的数据进行分析时,两个中心的计数一致低(中心8)或一致高(中心5),中心之间的差异进一步改善了CFU-GM (p = 0.798)和BFU-E (p = 0.619)。总之,本研究首次表明,只要提供充分的菌落鉴定培训,就可以使用基于胶原蛋白的半固体培养基(现已市售)实现可重复的BFU-E和CFU-GM评分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书