↓ Skip to main content

Design of a multi-center immunophenotyping analysis of peripheral blood, sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Design of a multi-center immunophenotyping analysis of peripheral blood, sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS)
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12967-014-0374-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine M Freeman, Sean Crudgington, Valerie R Stolberg, Jeanette P Brown, Joanne Sonstein, Neil E Alexis, Claire M Doerschuk, Patricia V Basta, Elizabeth E Carretta, David J Couper, Annette T Hastie, Robert J Kaner, Wanda K O’Neal, Robert Paine III, Stephen I Rennard, Daichi Shimbo, Prescott G Woodruff, Michelle Zeidler, Jeffrey L Curtis

Abstract

BackgroundSubpopulations and Intermediate Outcomes in COPD Study (SPIROMICS) is a multi-center longitudinal, observational study to identify novel phenotypes and biomarkers of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In a subset of 300 subjects enrolled at six clinical centers, we are performing flow cytometric analyses of leukocytes from induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and peripheral blood. To minimize several sources of variability, we use a ¿just-in-time¿ design that permits immediate staining without pre-fixation of samples, followed by centralized analysis on a single instrument.MethodsThe Immunophenotyping Core prepares 12-color antibody panels, which are shipped to the six Clinical Centers shortly before study visits. Sputum induction occurs at least two weeks before a bronchoscopy visit, at which time peripheral blood and bronchoalveolar lavage are collected. Immunostaining is performed at each clinical site on the day that the samples are collected. Samples are fixed and express shipped to the Immunophenotyping Core for data acquisition on a single modified LSR II flow cytometer. Results are analyzed using FACS Diva and FloJo software and cross-checked by Core scientists who are blinded to subject data.ResultsThus far, a total of 152 sputum samples and 117 samples of blood and BAL have been returned to the Immunophenotyping Core. Initial quality checks indicate useable data from 126 sputum samples (83%), 106 blood samples (91%) and 91 BAL samples (78%) provided usable data. In all three sample types, we are able to identify and characterize the activation state or subset of multiple leukocyte cell populations (including CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, B cells, monocytes, macrophages, neutrophils and eosinophils), thereby demonstrating the validity of the antibody panel.ConclusionsOur study design, which relies on bi-directional communication between clinical centers and the Core according to a pre-specified protocol, appears to reduce several sources of variability often seen in flow cytometric studies involving multiple clinical sites. Because leukocytes contribute to lung pathology in COPD, these analyses will help achieve SPIROMICS aims of identifying subgroups of patients with specific COPD phenotypes. Future analyses will correlate cell-surface markers on a given cell type with smoking history, spirometry, airway measurements, and other parameters.Trial registrationThis study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01969344.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Thailand 1 1%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 13 15%
Other 8 9%
Professor 5 6%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 17 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,411,709
of 23,325,355 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,197
of 4,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,925
of 355,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#34
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,325,355 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.