Skip to main content
Fig. 3 | Journal of Translational Medicine

Fig. 3

From: Validation of an IFNγ/IL2 FluoroSpot assay for clinical trial monitoring

Fig. 3

Precision across assays: FluoroSpot vs. ELISpot assay. Concordance between numbers of antigen-specific (BZLF1 and EBNA3A peptide pools) IFNγ- (a) and IL2 (b) SFC/2x105 PBMC detected within the IFNγ/IL2 FluoroSpot assay and an enzymatic IFNγ and IL2 ELISpot assay. Plotted is the difference in IFNγ (a) and IL2 (b) SFC/2x105 PBMC detected after ex vivo restimulation with BZLF1 (black circle) or EBNA3A (red triangle) peptide pools within the FluoroSpot- or ELISpot assay plotted against the average of IFNγ or IL2 SFC detected in either of the two assays. Concordance between FluoroSpot and ELISpot results was assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient p c by Lin. Descriptive statistics are the average difference d (horizontal solid line) and the limits of agreement (d ± 1.96 × s) (dashed line) of the detected T cell responses of both assay systems. d bias of measurements; s standard deviation; p c  concordance correlation coefficient by Lin

Back to article page