Review

anti pp65 (Cell Signaling Technology Inc)

Cell Signaling Technology Inc is a verified supplier

Cell Signaling Technology Inc manufactures this product

About

News

Press Release

Team

Advisors

Partners

Contact

Bioz Stars

Bioz vStars

Buy from Supplier

Structured Review

Cell Signaling Technology Inc anti pp65
Anti Pp65, supplied by Cell Signaling Technology Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 9335 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/pp65/Phospho-NF-kappaB+p65+(Ser536)+Rabbit+mAb/pm41865031-405-9-23
Average 99 stars, based on 9335 article reviews

anti pp65 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10

99/100 stars

Images

Saline:

Article Title: Factors Released by Polarized Neutrophil-like Cells Modulate Cardiac Fibroblast Phenotype and Limit the Inflammatory Response After Myocardial Infarction
Article Snippet: .. Membranes were further blocked in Tris-buffered saline (TBS) with 3% bovine serum albumin (BSA) for 1 h and incubated overnight with specific primary antibodies for human IL-1β, matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1, Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA USA, #54376, 1:1000), MMP-9 (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA, PA5-27191, 1:2000), α-SMA (Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA USA, #19245S, 1:1000), cellular communication network factor 2 (CCN2, Rabbit IgG, Novus Biological, Centennial, CO, USA, NBP2-16026, 1:1000), p38MAPK (Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA USA, #9212, 1:1000), pp38MAPK (Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA USA #4511, 1:1000); ERK1/2 (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA, MAB1576, 0.5 μg/mL), pERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, Massachusetts, USA, #4377, 1:1000), and p65 (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA, 51-0500, 1 μg/mL), pp65 (Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA USA, #3033, 1:1000) and housekeeping β-actin (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany, A3854, 1:30,000). ..

Incubation:

Article Title: ZNF655-mediated neuroprotection in cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury via Akt/Nrf2 pathway modulation.
Article Snippet: Background: Cerebral ischemia–reperfusion injury (CIRI) involves complex pathological processes, including oxidative stress, inflammatory responses, and apoptosis.. Zinc finger protein 655 (ZNF655) is implicated in the regulation of the Akt signaling pathway, which in turn activates nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2 (Nrf2) via phosphorylation, enhancing its stability and transcriptional activity.. This pathway plays a critical role in mediating antioxidant defenses, suppressing inflammation, and inhibiting apoptosis.

Membrane:

Article Title: Macrophage Tim-4 protects against deep vein thrombosis by binding CK2β to suppress inflammatory responses.
Article Snippet: Approximately 50 mg protein extract was fractionated by a 10% SDS-PAGE gel and then transferred onto a PVDF membrane (IPVH00010, Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany). .. The membrane was blocked with 5% bovine serum albumin (BSA) (A8020, Solarbio, Beijing, China) at room temperature for 2 hours and then incubated with the appropriate primary antibodies against Tim-4 (12008-1-AP, Proteintech, Wuhan, China), CK2b (GB113852-50, Servicebio, Wuhan, China), TF (CY5807, Abways, Shanghai, China), vWF (11778-1-AP, Proteintech, Wuhan, China), P65 (CY5034, Abways, Shanghai, China), pP65 (3033S, Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, MA, USA), IkBa (10268-1-AP, Proteintech, Wuhan, China), pIkBa (82349-1-RR, Proteintech, Wuhan, China), and GAPDH (AB0037, Abways, Shanghai, China) overnight at 4°C. .. After being washed for 3 times in PBST (PBS and Tween-20) washing buffer, the membranes were incubated with anti-rabbit (GAR0072, MULTI SCIENCES, Hangzhou, China) or anti-mouse horseradish peroxidase (HRP)labeled secondary antibody (GAM0072, MULTI SCIENCES, Hangzhou, China) at room temperature for 1.5 hours.

Blocking Assay:

Bioprocessing:

Article Title: Ganoderic Acid A alleviates ulcerative colitis by inhibiting the interleukin17 signaling pathway via targeting retinoic acid-related orphan receptor alpha.
Article Snippet: DSS (Cat#: D808272) were purchased from Macklin Biochemical Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China); GAA (Cat#: JOT-10947) were obtained from Pufei De Biotech Co., Ltd (Chengdu, China); Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) (Cat#: L3129) were got from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, United States); mouse recombinant IL-17A (Cat#: CM014-5MP) was obtained from Chamot Biotechnology Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China); and SuperKinemm Lipo3.0 transfection reagent (Cat#: BMU111-CN) were purchased from Abbkine Biotechnology Co., Ltd (Wuhan, China). .. Rabbit anti-Zonula occludens-1 (ZO-1, Cat#: 21773-1-AP), Occludin (Cat#: 27260-1-AP), α-catenin (Cat#: 12831–1-AP), inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS, Cat#: 18985-1-AP), CD206 (Cat#: 18704-1-AP) and F4/80 (Cat#: 27044-1-AP) polyclonal antibodies, β-actin (Cat#: 60008- 1-Ig) monoclonal antibody and mouse anti-IL-17A (Cat#: 66148-1-Ig) monoclonal antibody were obtained from Proteintech Group (Chicago, IL, United States); Rabbit anti- ERK1/2 (Cat#: 4695S), p-ERK1/2 (Cat#: 4370S), p38 (Cat#: 8690S), p-p38 (Cat#:4511S), p65 (Cat#: 8242S), pp65 (Cat#: 3033S) monoclonal antibodies, rabbit anti-JNK (Cat#: 9252S) polyclonal antibody and mouse anti-p-JNK (Cat#: 9255S) monoclonal antibody were purchased from Cell signaling Technology (Danvers, MA, USA); Rabbit anti-TNF receptor-associated factor 6 (TRAF6, Cat#: PTM20092) monoclonal antibody was got from Jingjie PTM Biolab Co., Inc (Hangzhou, china); Rabbit anti-NF-κB activator 1 (ACT1, Cat#: AWA59852) and RORA (Cat#: AWA63096) polyclonal antibodies were purchased from Abiowell Biotechnology Co., Ltd (Changsha, China); Rabbit anti-C-C motif chemokine receptor 6 (CCR6, Cat#: PAB57324) polyclonal antibody was got from Bioswamp Life Science Lab (Wuhan, China); and Rabbit anti-IL-17A (Cat#: A12454) polyclonal antibody was obtained from ABclonal Biotechnology Co., Ltd (Wuhan, China). ..

Cell-Signaling:

Article Title: Wogonoside Modulates the Nrf2/SLC40A1 Signaling Axis to Combat Inflammatory Osteolysis
Article Snippet: SLC7A11 and GPX4 antibodies were provided by Zenbio (Chengdu, China). .. Cell Signaling Technology (Danvers, MA, USA) provided a set of antibodies, including HO-1, p-P38, P65, p-c-Jun kinase enzyme (JNK), pP65, P38, p-extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)1/2, I κB- α, ERK1/2, JNK, and β-actin. .. Biological safety cabinets, CO2 incubators, and high-speed refrigerated centrifuges from Thermo, USA; inverted fluorescence microscopes from Leica, Germany; upright microscopes from Olympus, Japan; real-time fluorescent quantitative PCR systems from Roche, Switzerland; gradient PCR instruments from Life Technologies, USA; multifunctional microplate readers from Berthold, Germany; multifunctional fluorescence/luminescence analyzers from BMG LABTECH GmbH, Germany; cell imaging systems from BioTek, USA; the small animal live imaging systems from Bruker, USA; bone biology research systems from BIOQUANT, USA; and scanning electron microscopes from HITACHI, Japan.

Image Search Results

Activation-induced marker assays are inherently variable and detect heterogeneous subsets of activated CD4 + T cells (A–D) Representative flow cytometry data and quantification of paired raw unstimulated and pp65-stimulated AIM + frequencies among CD4 + T cells (A and B) and CD8 + T cells (C and D). CV (%) is displayed above the responses for each donor. (E and F) Source(s) of variance in CD4 + (E) and CD8 + (F) AIM + cell frequencies calculated after subtracting the corresponding unstimulated AIM + frequencies, using mixed effects analysis, with donor and experiment (technical replicate) as random effects. Graphs show variance components as the percentages of total variance. (G and H) Uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) analysis was performed on CD4 + (G) and CD8 + (H) total AIM + T cells, defined by co-expression of at least one AIM pair. (I and J) FlowSOM clustering of total AIM + CD4 + T cells. (I) Each circle represents one cluster and its relative marker expression; similar clusters are grouped into 8 metaclusters (colored rings); cluster/metacluster spatial proximity indicates similarity. (J) Heatmap showing relative marker expression in the 8 FlowSOM metaclusters. (K) AIM + CD4 + T cell percentages within each FlowSOM metacluster across individual donors. Replicate AIM assays were performed on cryopreserved PBMCs from 5 donors, with 4–8 technical replicates per donor across 2–4 independent experiments; PBMCs were stimulated for 20 h with CMV pp65 peptides. Total AIM + populations from pp65-stimulated samples were pooled from all donors and technical replicates (G–J) or all technical replicates within each donor (K) prior to analysis.

Journal: Cell Reports Methods

Article Title: Reproducible detection of antigen-specific T cells and Tregs via standardized and automated activation-induced marker assay workflows

doi: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2026.101458

Figure Lengend Snippet: Activation-induced marker assays are inherently variable and detect heterogeneous subsets of activated CD4 + T cells (A–D) Representative flow cytometry data and quantification of paired raw unstimulated and pp65-stimulated AIM + frequencies among CD4 + T cells (A and B) and CD8 + T cells (C and D). CV (%) is displayed above the responses for each donor. (E and F) Source(s) of variance in CD4 + (E) and CD8 + (F) AIM + cell frequencies calculated after subtracting the corresponding unstimulated AIM + frequencies, using mixed effects analysis, with donor and experiment (technical replicate) as random effects. Graphs show variance components as the percentages of total variance. (G and H) Uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) analysis was performed on CD4 + (G) and CD8 + (H) total AIM + T cells, defined by co-expression of at least one AIM pair. (I and J) FlowSOM clustering of total AIM + CD4 + T cells. (I) Each circle represents one cluster and its relative marker expression; similar clusters are grouped into 8 metaclusters (colored rings); cluster/metacluster spatial proximity indicates similarity. (J) Heatmap showing relative marker expression in the 8 FlowSOM metaclusters. (K) AIM + CD4 + T cell percentages within each FlowSOM metacluster across individual donors. Replicate AIM assays were performed on cryopreserved PBMCs from 5 donors, with 4–8 technical replicates per donor across 2–4 independent experiments; PBMCs were stimulated for 20 h with CMV pp65 peptides. Total AIM + populations from pp65-stimulated samples were pooled from all donors and technical replicates (G–J) or all technical replicates within each donor (K) prior to analysis.

Article Snippet: Cells were incubated for 6, 20 or 44 h with media, 1.5 μg/mL PepTivator CMV pp65 (Miltenyi), 3.3 μg/mL CMV pp65 recombinant protein (Miltenyi), 1 μg/mL PepTivator SARS-CoV-2 Prot_S (Miltenyi), or 1/100 Infanrix hexa (GSK) or 1/400 CytoStim (Miltenyi).

Techniques: Activation Assay, Marker, Flow Cytometry, Expressing

Journal: Cell Reports Methods

Article Title: Reproducible detection of antigen-specific T cells and Tregs via standardized and automated activation-induced marker assay workflows

doi: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2026.101458

Figure Lengend Snippet: Box-Cox transformation-based correction for background enhances signal detection and reduces variability (A) Re-analysis of AIM assay data from SARS-CoV-2 spike peptide-stimulated PBMCs from solid organ transplant recipients ( n = 33) vaccinated with three doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (PREVENT cohort), or (B) new analysis of CMV pp65-stimulated PBMCs from 6 healthy donors across 3 independent experiments at each of 4 research centers in the CAN-ASC cohort ( n = 52 total). Shown are correlation and linear regression analyses of unstimulated AIM + frequencies with raw antigen-stimulated AIM + frequencies, net responses after subtracting or dividing by the unstimulated condition. CD134 + CD25 + of CD4 + T cells and CD137 + CD69 + of CD8 + T cells are presented. p values are from Spearman’s correlation tests. Solid lines represent linear regression with error bars indicating 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the CAN-ASC cohort, regression and correlation analyses were performed after correcting for between-donor variations. (C) Box-Cox transformation workflow to correct for AIM + cells in unstimulated controls, using a user-defined parameter λ ϵ[0,1], yielding a stimulation index (SI). (D and E) Three statistical methods to estimate optimal λ values by minimizing correlation between the unstimulated and net stimulated AIM values. Left: linear regression to identify λ giving the highest probability of zero slope ( β ˆ = 0 ), expressed as a posterior probability distribution for λ. Center: Spearman’s correlation to identify the value of λ producing an estimated zero correlation. Right: likelihood profile for λ based on linear regression to estimate the probable optimal value of λ. Values were estimated for (D) PREVENT or (E) CAN-ASC cohorts. (F) ICC values as a function of λ in the CAN-ASC cohort, using the SI for CD4 + and CD8 + AIM responses to CMV pp65. Gray dotted lines show ICC values for raw (untransformed) AIM + frequencies. (G) Comparison of bootstrap-adjusted CVs calculated between technical replicates within donors for raw AIM + frequencies, net subtraction-/division-corrected AIM + frequencies/ratios, or Box-Cox-corrected SIs. Each point is the bootstrap-adjusted CV of technical replicates from one donor. p values represent Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test following one-way repeated-measures ANOVA. (H and I) Re-analysis of AIM responses for the PREVENT cohort throughout a three-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccination schedule calculated by subtracting or dividing by unstimulated AIM + frequencies, or Box-Cox-corrected SI values. p values represent Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test following mixed-effects analysis of log 2 -transformed data. Bold p values denote significant differences between time points detected only with Box-Cox-corrected SI values.

Techniques: Transformation Assay, Comparison

AIM responses are reliably detectable across various cell sources (A) Percentage viable of total CD3 + T cells in AIM assays. Error bars represent SD. p values represent comparisons using Dunn’s multiple comparisons test following Friedman test. (B–E) Representative flow cytometry (B and C) and SI quantification (D and E) for each AIM relative to the unstimulated control among CD4 + (B and D) and CD8 + (C and E) T cells from each cell source. (F) Ratio of AIM SIs between CMV pp65 protein- and peptide-stimulated CD4 + T cells in relation to cell source. Positive or negative ratios indicate greater detection of AIM responses with whole protein or peptide stimulation, respectively, while 95% CIs overlapping zero indicate no significant difference between protein and peptide stimulation. AIM responses using fresh whole blood, fresh PBMCs, or cryopreserved PBMCs (PBMC-C), with or without a 24-h delay in processing (−24 h) are compared. Cells were rested overnight and stimulated for 20 h with CMV pp65 peptides, CMV pp65 whole protein, or Infanrix vaccine. Error bars are 95% CIs calculated on a log 2 scale (D, E and F), and data are from n = 6 healthy donors (A–F).

Journal: Cell Reports Methods

Article Title: Reproducible detection of antigen-specific T cells and Tregs via standardized and automated activation-induced marker assay workflows

doi: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2026.101458

Figure Lengend Snippet: AIM responses are reliably detectable across various cell sources (A) Percentage viable of total CD3 + T cells in AIM assays. Error bars represent SD. p values represent comparisons using Dunn’s multiple comparisons test following Friedman test. (B–E) Representative flow cytometry (B and C) and SI quantification (D and E) for each AIM relative to the unstimulated control among CD4 + (B and D) and CD8 + (C and E) T cells from each cell source. (F) Ratio of AIM SIs between CMV pp65 protein- and peptide-stimulated CD4 + T cells in relation to cell source. Positive or negative ratios indicate greater detection of AIM responses with whole protein or peptide stimulation, respectively, while 95% CIs overlapping zero indicate no significant difference between protein and peptide stimulation. AIM responses using fresh whole blood, fresh PBMCs, or cryopreserved PBMCs (PBMC-C), with or without a 24-h delay in processing (−24 h) are compared. Cells were rested overnight and stimulated for 20 h with CMV pp65 peptides, CMV pp65 whole protein, or Infanrix vaccine. Error bars are 95% CIs calculated on a log 2 scale (D, E and F), and data are from n = 6 healthy donors (A–F).

Techniques: Flow Cytometry, Control

A 20-h stimulation period reliably detects most CD4 + and CD8 + T cell AIMs Fresh whole blood or cryopreserved PBMCs (PBMC-C) were stimulated with CMV pp65 peptides for 6, 20, or 44 h. (A) Representative CD134 + CD25 + frequencies of CD4 + T cells. (B) SI quantification of AIM + CD4 + T cells. (C) Representative CD137 + CD69 + frequencies of CD8 + T cells. (D) SI quantification of AIM + CD8 + T cells. p values represent one-sample t tests (B and D), with AIM signals considered present when the mean log 2 -transformed SI significantly differed from zero. Paired samples are from n = 4 healthy donors (A–D).

Journal: Cell Reports Methods

Article Title: Reproducible detection of antigen-specific T cells and Tregs via standardized and automated activation-induced marker assay workflows

doi: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2026.101458

Figure Lengend Snippet: A 20-h stimulation period reliably detects most CD4 + and CD8 + T cell AIMs Fresh whole blood or cryopreserved PBMCs (PBMC-C) were stimulated with CMV pp65 peptides for 6, 20, or 44 h. (A) Representative CD134 + CD25 + frequencies of CD4 + T cells. (B) SI quantification of AIM + CD4 + T cells. (C) Representative CD137 + CD69 + frequencies of CD8 + T cells. (D) SI quantification of AIM + CD8 + T cells. p values represent one-sample t tests (B and D), with AIM signals considered present when the mean log 2 -transformed SI significantly differed from zero. Paired samples are from n = 4 healthy donors (A–D).

Techniques: Transformation Assay

CD134 and CD137 optimally detect antigen-specific Tregs (A) Representative flow cytometric gating strategy for FOXP3 + HELIOS + Tregs. (B) Effect of stimulation with CMV pp65 peptides on FOXP3 + and FOXP3 + HELIOS + frequencies in CD4 + T cells. p values represent Tukey’s multiple comparisons test following two-way ANOVA. (C–E) SI and representative flow cytometry for AIM pairs and Boolean combinations in FOXP3 + HELIOS + Tregs following stimulation of cryopreserved PBMCs with pp65 peptides or whole protein, SARS-CoV-2 spike peptides, or Infanrix combination vaccine for 20 h. Boolean AND/OR gating combinations comprise CD134/CD69, CD134/CD137, and CD137/CD69 (3xAIM); or 3xAIM plus CD154/CD69, CD134/CD154, and CD137/CD154 (6xAIM). Mean log 2 -transformed Box-Cox-corrected SIs are shown. (F) Gating strategy to evaluate CD39 + frequencies among CD134 + CD137 + and non-CD134 + CD137 + FOXP3 + HELIOS + Tregs and FOXP3/HELIOS − Tconvs. (G) Median percentages of CD39 + among CD134 + CD137 + or non-CD134 + CD137 + CD4 + FOXP3 + HELIOS + Tregs or conventional FOXP3/HELIOS − T cells. p values represent Dunnett's multiple comparisons test following repeated measures one-way ANOVA on log2-transformed data. (H) Positive predictive value (PPV) of CD39 or CD39, CD134, and CD137 as markers for antigen-specific Tregs (CD134 + CD137 + FOXP3 + HELIOS + ). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the mean (C, E, and H) or interquartile ranges (G). Healthy donors: n = 9 (pp65 and Infanrix 20-h stimulations) and n = 4 (all others).

Journal: Cell Reports Methods

Article Title: Reproducible detection of antigen-specific T cells and Tregs via standardized and automated activation-induced marker assay workflows

doi: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2026.101458

Figure Lengend Snippet: CD134 and CD137 optimally detect antigen-specific Tregs (A) Representative flow cytometric gating strategy for FOXP3 + HELIOS + Tregs. (B) Effect of stimulation with CMV pp65 peptides on FOXP3 + and FOXP3 + HELIOS + frequencies in CD4 + T cells. p values represent Tukey’s multiple comparisons test following two-way ANOVA. (C–E) SI and representative flow cytometry for AIM pairs and Boolean combinations in FOXP3 + HELIOS + Tregs following stimulation of cryopreserved PBMCs with pp65 peptides or whole protein, SARS-CoV-2 spike peptides, or Infanrix combination vaccine for 20 h. Boolean AND/OR gating combinations comprise CD134/CD69, CD134/CD137, and CD137/CD69 (3xAIM); or 3xAIM plus CD154/CD69, CD134/CD154, and CD137/CD154 (6xAIM). Mean log 2 -transformed Box-Cox-corrected SIs are shown. (F) Gating strategy to evaluate CD39 + frequencies among CD134 + CD137 + and non-CD134 + CD137 + FOXP3 + HELIOS + Tregs and FOXP3/HELIOS − Tconvs. (G) Median percentages of CD39 + among CD134 + CD137 + or non-CD134 + CD137 + CD4 + FOXP3 + HELIOS + Tregs or conventional FOXP3/HELIOS − T cells. p values represent Dunnett's multiple comparisons test following repeated measures one-way ANOVA on log2-transformed data. (H) Positive predictive value (PPV) of CD39 or CD39, CD134, and CD137 as markers for antigen-specific Tregs (CD134 + CD137 + FOXP3 + HELIOS + ). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the mean (C, E, and H) or interquartile ranges (G). Healthy donors: n = 9 (pp65 and Infanrix 20-h stimulations) and n = 4 (all others).

Techniques: Flow Cytometry, Transformation Assay

CMV- and SARS-CoV-2-specific AIM assays are reproducible within and between research centers (A) Experimental design for AIM assay inter-site testing. Replicate aliquots of PBMCs from n = 6 healthy donors assayed in three independent experiments (individual points) by four research groups (coded A–D). Replicate AIM assay experiments ( n = 3 per donor, per site) were performed by stimulating PBMCs for 20 h with CMV pp65 or SARS-CoV-2 spike peptides. (B and C) Box-Cox-corrected SIs of CD134 + CD25 + frequencies among CD4 + T cells and CD137 + CD69 + among CD8 + T cells. Means and SD of log 2 -transformed SIs are shown. Colors indicate the CV within each set of three replicates at each site, with overall CV between sites shown at the top for each donor. (D) Percent CV in CD4 + and CD8 + T cell AIM SIs calculated between technical replicate AIM assays within each site for unstimulated, pp65-stimulated, and spike-stimulated conditions. Each point represents the CV of three technical replicates within one site; bars represent individual donors. CV means with SD are shown. (E and F) ICCs comparing technical variability among CD4 + and CD8 + AIM responses to (E) CMV pp65 and (F) SARS-CoV-2 spike, using data from replicate AIM assays from different sites and donors. Bars represent the mean ICC for each AIM across all sites. (G and H) Percent CV in CD4 + and CD8 + T cell AIM responses to (G) CMV pp65 and (H) SARS-CoV-2 spike between the sites, calculated after averaging three technical replicate AIM assays per site. Each point represents one donor. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval of the mean. (I) ICCs comparing calculated technical variability for replicate AIM assays between sites to biological variability between donors for CD4 + and CD8 + T cells. Dotted lines represent CV = 30% (in D, G and H) and indicate ICC = 0.5 (equal biological and technical variability) (E, F, and I).

Journal: Cell Reports Methods

Article Title: Reproducible detection of antigen-specific T cells and Tregs via standardized and automated activation-induced marker assay workflows

doi: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2026.101458

Figure Lengend Snippet: CMV- and SARS-CoV-2-specific AIM assays are reproducible within and between research centers (A) Experimental design for AIM assay inter-site testing. Replicate aliquots of PBMCs from n = 6 healthy donors assayed in three independent experiments (individual points) by four research groups (coded A–D). Replicate AIM assay experiments ( n = 3 per donor, per site) were performed by stimulating PBMCs for 20 h with CMV pp65 or SARS-CoV-2 spike peptides. (B and C) Box-Cox-corrected SIs of CD134 + CD25 + frequencies among CD4 + T cells and CD137 + CD69 + among CD8 + T cells. Means and SD of log 2 -transformed SIs are shown. Colors indicate the CV within each set of three replicates at each site, with overall CV between sites shown at the top for each donor. (D) Percent CV in CD4 + and CD8 + T cell AIM SIs calculated between technical replicate AIM assays within each site for unstimulated, pp65-stimulated, and spike-stimulated conditions. Each point represents the CV of three technical replicates within one site; bars represent individual donors. CV means with SD are shown. (E and F) ICCs comparing technical variability among CD4 + and CD8 + AIM responses to (E) CMV pp65 and (F) SARS-CoV-2 spike, using data from replicate AIM assays from different sites and donors. Bars represent the mean ICC for each AIM across all sites. (G and H) Percent CV in CD4 + and CD8 + T cell AIM responses to (G) CMV pp65 and (H) SARS-CoV-2 spike between the sites, calculated after averaging three technical replicate AIM assays per site. Each point represents one donor. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval of the mean. (I) ICCs comparing calculated technical variability for replicate AIM assays between sites to biological variability between donors for CD4 + and CD8 + T cells. Dotted lines represent CV = 30% (in D, G and H) and indicate ICC = 0.5 (equal biological and technical variability) (E, F, and I).

Techniques: Transformation Assay

An automated gating pipeline performs comparably to manual analysis for AIM assays (A) Individuals were trained on identical gating protocols and analyzed the same data files from three technical replicates of 20-h AIM assays with CMV pp65 or SARS-CoV-2 spike peptides on healthy donor PBMCs ( n = 6) collected at four sites designated A–D. Raw flow cytometric data from each replicate at each site were analyzed independently by 3 individuals. Data represent CVs between analysts as the mean CV (with error bars showing 95% CIs) for the three technical replicates of each donor-site combination. (B and C) An automated AIM gating pipeline was created; flow cytometric gating approaches comparing manual and automated analyses are shown for (B) CD4 + CD134 + /CD25 + T cells and (C) CD8 + CD137 + /CD69 + T cells. The CytoStim condition was used by the automated software to set donor-specific AIM gates, which were then applied to other stimulations. (D–F) Automated and manual analyses of multi-center CMV and SARS-CoV-2 AIM assay data. A central analyst (C1) defined the gating strategy, provided instructions to the manual analysts (C2 and O1–O4), and was the reference for comparisons. C1, C2, and the automated software each analyzed all data from all sites, while O1–O4 each analyzed data from a single site (O1: A; O2: B; O3: C; O4: D). Box-Cox-corrected AIM SI values are shown for (D) CMV and (E) SARS-CoV-2 AIM assays. p values represent paired comparisons between each analyst and C1 from post-hoc Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test following mixed-effects analysis and were used to compute (F) total numbers of comparisons for C2 and automated analyses that significantly differed from C1 for CD4 + AIMs, with each of the 32 combinations of CD4 + AIM, site, and antigen (CMV or SARS-CoV-2) considered one comparison. Pooled comparisons were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. (G–I) Spearman’s correlations of AIM SI values for C1, C2, O1–O4 (pooled), and automated analyses for CMV and SARS-CoV-2. Comparisons are shown against (G and H) the reference C1 and (I) for each analyst against all others in a correlation matrix. (J) F1 scores calculated for C2 manual vs. C1 reference (gray) or automated vs. C1 reference (green) analysis. Each point represents the F1 score from a unique donor-site combination, with p values from paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test after averaging F1 scores from technical replicates.

Journal: Cell Reports Methods

Article Title: Reproducible detection of antigen-specific T cells and Tregs via standardized and automated activation-induced marker assay workflows

doi: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2026.101458

Figure Lengend Snippet: An automated gating pipeline performs comparably to manual analysis for AIM assays (A) Individuals were trained on identical gating protocols and analyzed the same data files from three technical replicates of 20-h AIM assays with CMV pp65 or SARS-CoV-2 spike peptides on healthy donor PBMCs ( n = 6) collected at four sites designated A–D. Raw flow cytometric data from each replicate at each site were analyzed independently by 3 individuals. Data represent CVs between analysts as the mean CV (with error bars showing 95% CIs) for the three technical replicates of each donor-site combination. (B and C) An automated AIM gating pipeline was created; flow cytometric gating approaches comparing manual and automated analyses are shown for (B) CD4 + CD134 + /CD25 + T cells and (C) CD8 + CD137 + /CD69 + T cells. The CytoStim condition was used by the automated software to set donor-specific AIM gates, which were then applied to other stimulations. (D–F) Automated and manual analyses of multi-center CMV and SARS-CoV-2 AIM assay data. A central analyst (C1) defined the gating strategy, provided instructions to the manual analysts (C2 and O1–O4), and was the reference for comparisons. C1, C2, and the automated software each analyzed all data from all sites, while O1–O4 each analyzed data from a single site (O1: A; O2: B; O3: C; O4: D). Box-Cox-corrected AIM SI values are shown for (D) CMV and (E) SARS-CoV-2 AIM assays. p values represent paired comparisons between each analyst and C1 from post-hoc Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test following mixed-effects analysis and were used to compute (F) total numbers of comparisons for C2 and automated analyses that significantly differed from C1 for CD4 + AIMs, with each of the 32 combinations of CD4 + AIM, site, and antigen (CMV or SARS-CoV-2) considered one comparison. Pooled comparisons were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. (G–I) Spearman’s correlations of AIM SI values for C1, C2, O1–O4 (pooled), and automated analyses for CMV and SARS-CoV-2. Comparisons are shown against (G and H) the reference C1 and (I) for each analyst against all others in a correlation matrix. (J) F1 scores calculated for C2 manual vs. C1 reference (gray) or automated vs. C1 reference (green) analysis. Each point represents the F1 score from a unique donor-site combination, with p values from paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test after averaging F1 scores from technical replicates.

Techniques: Software, Comparison

Review

anti pp65 (Cell Signaling Technology Inc)

Structured Review

Images

Related Articles

Saline:

Incubation:

Membrane:

Blocking Assay:

Bioprocessing:

Cell-Signaling:

Similar Products

Image Search Results