FlowCAP. Comparison of Automated and Manual Gating of Standardized Lyoplate Flow Cytometry Data

Flow Cytometry Software Session, Cyto 2013, San Diego, CA

Greg Finak, PhD
Staff Scientist, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA

Overview

Why Standardize Assays?

Lyoplates and the FOCIS / HIPC effort.

Brief history of FlowCAP.

FlowCAP III - Automated gating of standardized Lyoplate-based flow cytometry data.

OpenCyto Framework to make the FlowCAP algorithms avaialble and easy to use.

Standardization Facilitates Reproducibility and Data Comparison

Maecker, McCoy, Nussenblatt, Nat Rev Immunol, 2012

Flow is a complex assay - many potential sources of variability.
Sample collection, preparation, staining, acquisition, instrumentation, data analysis.
Need to control as many aspects of the assay as possible.

Standardized FITMan Staining Panels Allow Comparison of Results Across Centers

Maecker, McCoy, Nussenblatt, Nat Rev Immunol, 2012

Proposed in 2010 at FITMan meeting.
Implemented as standardized Lyoplates (96 well plates, lyophilized reagents).

Panels are Targeted at "Commonly Identified" Cell Populations.

Figure Courtesy of H. Maecker

T-cells

Naive, memory, plasmablasts, transitional

T regulatory cells

CD4, Treg, memory, naive, activated

Th1 Th2 Th17 cells

CD4/CD8 Th1,2,17, activated

B cells

CD4/CD8 naive, central memory,
effector memory, effector, activated.

Dendritic cells, monocytes, NK cells

DC, mDC, pDC, monocytes, CD16 monocytes, conventional monocytes

The panels leave room for custom markers to identify additional populations of interest.

Data Analysis is a Source of Technical Variability

  • Different people performing gating produce different results.
  • also compensation, transformation, tools and so forth.

History of the FlowCAP Workshops

FLowCAP: Critical Assessment of Cell Population Identification Methods

Three-year old series of workshops for benchmarking automated gating methods.
Aiming for objective comparison of automated gating algorithms.

FlowCAP I and II

Challenges focused on high dimensional automated gating (discovery).

FlowCAP III

Focus on reproducibility, applicability to clinical trials.

  • Lyoplate Challenge: Reproduce centralized manual gates.
  • Identify methods with minimum bias and low variability.

FlowCAP III: Lyoplate Standardized Gating

Identify Gating Methods with low variability and bias relative to centralized manual gating

  • FlowCAP III Lyoplate challenge focused on the T-cell and B-cell panels.
  • 9 sites, 4 replicates of cryopreserved cells per site.
  • Centralized gating of data based on a consensus "best" approach amongst the 9 centers.
  • Automated algorithms were compared against the centralized gating.

Why Compare Against Manual Gating?

In clinical trials, the things we want to measure are well defined a-priori.

  • Flow assays are well defined.
  • Cell populations of interest are well defined.
  • No immediate need to apply high-dimensional gating for "discovery".
    • Such approaches are suitable for analysis of secondary endpoints.

Large data sets.

  • Gating is tedious and subject to human error (this has been shown over and over).
  • We want to automate the repetitive tasks. Make them:
    • Robust and Reproducible

Automated Gating Methods Should Perform At Least as Well as Centralized Gating

FlowCAP Participants (Lyoplate Challenge)

DENSE ( A. Brandes, Broad Institute )

flowDensity ( J. Taghiyar, BC Cancer Agency )

OpenCyto ( J. Ramey, FHCRC )

emcytom ( K. Wang, University of Queensland )

FLOCK ( R. Stanton, JCVI )

Centralized Gating ( Current best practice )

FlowCAP III Gating Evaluation Criteria

Assess automated methods relative to central manual gating.

  • Variability
    • Coefficients of variation across centers
  • Bias: \(RMSD_{gpc} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum(y_{gcpr}-\mu_{mpc})}{R}}\)
  • Mixed Effects Model: \(y_{gpcr}=\mu+\phi_{p}+\color{red}{\gamma_{g}}+\color{red}{\phi\gamma_{pg}}+(\phi\chi)_{pc}+\epsilon_{gpcr}\)
    • Fixed gating and cell population effects.
    • Random center \(\times\) cell population effects.
    • Interested in interaction and contrasts of fixed effects. \((\gamma_g + \phi\gamma_pg -\gamma_0 - \phi\gamma_{p0} = 0)\)
      An ideal automated gating method will have low bias and low variability for each population.

Centralized Gating of the B-cell panel

flowWorkspace: Import Manually Gated Data from flowJo

http://www.github.com/RGLab/flowWorkspace (Bioconductor)
Reproduce FlowJo gating in R from an exported workspace.

ws<-openWorkspace("./Data/Centralized T-cell.xml");
G<-parseWorkspace(ws);
plotGate(G[[1]]); #Plot all B-cell manual gates
  • Extract manual gates, population statistics and compare against automated gating.

B-cell Panel Variability

Cross center variability of automated gating methods is comparable to centralized gating.

T-cell Panel Variability

At least one method per panel matches the variability of centralized gating for all populations.

B-cell Panel Bias

Three methods provided unbiased cell population estimates for the B-cell panel.

T-cell Panel Bias

Three methods were mostly unbiased, having difficulty with some rare or poorly resolved cell populations.

OpenCyto Framework: Construct flexible gating pipelines

Goal: Make the best algorithms available for use.

http://www.github.com/RGLab/openCyto

Integrates core R flow infrastructure with automated gating algorithms
(Bayesian flowClust, flowCore, flowDensity, DENSE)

  • Modular architecture: plug-in any gating algorithms.
  • High-level description of gating schemes
    • User defines hierarchy of cell populations and relevant markers
    • Higher-dimensional gating (e.g. >2D) is available.

Framework abstracts away most of the R-coding.

OpenCyto: Defining cell populations

Example CSV Gating Template Definition (Lyoplate B-cell Panel)

Alias population parent dims method options
nonDebris nonDebris+ root FSC-A flowClust min=0
singlets singlets+ nonDebris FSCA,FSCH singletGate
lymph lymph singlets FSCA,SSCA flowClust K=3,quantile=0.95,target=c(1e5,5e4)
cd3 cd3- lymph cd3 flowClust K=3,neg=2
cd19 cd19+ CD3 cd20 flowClust K=2
cd20 cd20+ CD3 cd20 flowClust K=2
cd19&!cd20 cd19&!cd20 cd3 boolGate cd19&!cd20
cd19&cd20 cd19&cd20 cd3 boolGate cd19&cd20
transitional transitional cd19&cd20 cd38,cd24 flowClust K=5,gate_type='axis',target=c(3.5e3,3.5e3),quantile=0.995,axis_translation=0.35

R Code to Run the Gating

template<-gatingTemplate("bcellTemplate.csv")
fs<-readFlowSet(file="Data/Bcells/")
gs<-GatingSet(fs)
G<-gating(template,gs)

OpenCyto Framework: Automated Gates

Makes complex algorithms easy to use.

Acknowledgements

FlowCAP

Lyoplate Data
Holden Maecker (Stanford)
Phil McCoy (NHLBI) FOCIS and HIPC consortia Participating Centers
FlowCAP Coordinating Committee
Raphael Gottardo (FHCRC)
Ryan Brinkman (BCCA)
Richard Scheuermann (JCVI)
Tim Mossman (U Rochester)
Nima Aghaeepour (Stanford, BCCA)
Thanks to all FlowCAP
Participants
NIH and NIAID

R Flow Tools

Bioconductor Flow Package Contributors
FHCRC
Raphael Gottardo
Mike Jiang
John Ramey
BCCA
Ryan Brinkman
Nima Aghaeepour
Jafar Taghiyar
TreeStar
Adam Triester
Jay Almarode

Take Home Messages

There are automated gating algorithms that are sufficiently robust to be useful for data analysis today.

  • DENSE (Broad Institute), flowDensity (BCCA), OpenCyto (FHCRC)

The tools are available to make them practical to use for your data.

Get these slides online: http://www.github.com/gfinak/Talks/LyoplateFlowCAP3