[Cytometry] .fcs standardization/flow accreditation
eadesb at wustl.edu
Sun May 8 10:51:12 EDT 2011
Now that I have mustered enough courage to post about one thing, other related items about teaching flow have been heavy on my mind for a year now. I am not going to Baltimore, so I probably need to say this here.
Accreditation for flow cytometrists may on the surface seem like a good idea. I realize that my minority opinion (assumed) is that this idea obfuscates what a potential employer would want, by merely having a person who may be good at tests be considered an expert. What a person knows about flow and what they can do with it are two entirely different things, as I have found out as an employer. ISAC is enacting an expensive endeavor involving third party entities to implement, adding yet another commercial factor to what we do. In an expanding discipline such as ours, the predominant operator instruction is very vendor specific, and with so many new companies and offerings, a globalized method appraisal will only address commonality. Also, different institutions and industries require differing responsibilities where flow cytometry is concerned, some involving sample preparation and biological experiment design, and some merely centralized operation of instruments and file analysis. With all of the branches of specialization, to try to cover the complexity with a fair and appropriate metric will be at best a token piece of paper.
While I am here, I will voice my complaint on governance by survey, by which this project was implemented by ISAC. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. If you are taking heart to a 20% sampling convention and dismissing the psychology of survey abstinence, you had better go back to popular voting to make ISAC decisions on projects this expensive and complicated, especially in this economy and funding climate. My words will not matter, as I was told that the project is well under way, and as folks that did not participate in the survey are finding out, they lost their voice of governing thinking that survey may have meant survey and not vote. My only hope is that this may be considered more closely in new decisions.
This may seem that my opinion is that vendors and possibly ISAC are bad, which is neither correct or justified. It does mean that there is a much more dire project that is slipping away from us that needs attention now, being the enforcement of fcs keyword structure and standardization of plotting transforms. Clinicians who have banked decades of pattern recognition have to scratch their heads, or just hand it to the tenured operators to figure out. This is not to say that the evolution of 2nd order transforms is bad, because it has enhanced the ability to know how to interpret the evil dots on the axis lines with a value of 1. What the problem is that we are having format wars in industry that bias towards vendor exclusivity and it is veering away from our need for standards. (gee, that never happened before...:o))
The largest problem is what I understand to be the nebulous and misunderstood $Pne keyword that is supposed to tell an analysis application how to scale an fcs file, and there might be others. If you deal with the most popular instruments, and the most popular off line analysis suite, you are justified to say "what problem?", because they have worked this out. If, however, you are experimenting with new designs from newer or less prominent manufacturing sources, often you are left in the desert, and you can in fact install inaccuracy of the plots. The worst transgressor is the automated transform, which hides the preference to turn it off. It is like having to check the box not to get spam when you shop online. In the process of the analysis suite companies to show off their wares, the automated scaling and transform preference is at the least a distraction. Consider a busy core with several analysis workstations that require complicated preference changes to merely look at an acquired file as it was acquired, and how in some s/w those preferences changes are global and carry over to the next user, who may not have the same file type. Management nightmare.
The answer to this is to enforce the expansion of keyword specificity for the $Pne and other applicable keywords to cover all types of new transforms/digital gain factors, and to enforce software companies, existing and emerging, to by default display the acquired file as it was acquired by using the correct $Pne keyword, and not to bias towards unfamiliar view, whether considered better or not. The promotion of novel transforms can still be there, but not by default, as this is so potentially dangerous, especially as this creeps towards clinical use.
Lastly, vendors, I implore you, please teach your salespeople that there is a huge difference between scaling and dynamic range. Thanks, and this most likely ends this installment of my bi yearly posting to the forum. I apologize if this has been brought up in detail while my head was turned.
William C. Eades
Research Assistant Professor
Department of Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
Co-Director, HSCS Core Lab
Siteman Cancer Center
Office- 701B Southwest Tower
Lab- 703 Southwest Tower
703SWT, 4566 Scott Avenue
Saint Louis, MO 63110
More information about the Cytometry