NewsFlash

The final MIATA guidelines have been published in Immunity on June 26, 2012. Please check this website and publication for the ready-to-use guidelines.

MIATA Objectives PDF Print E-mail

Analysis of antigen-specific T cell responses has become an increasingly used tool in immune monitoring from basic research to clinical trial settings. Although an increasing number of promising data from correlative studies has been published, the lack of conformity on reporting such data hampers the ability to objectively evaluate data.

Here we present a project called Minimal Information About T cell Assays (“MIATA”).

This project, first introduced in a Letter to Immunity on October 16, 2009, aims at generating recommendations on the minimum information required to allow an objective and thorough interpretation of published results from immunological T cell assays.

The project went through an intense vetting process that included 2 public consultation periods and 2 public workshops. The process of maturing the guidelines to a consensus document has been described in a recent publication in Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy.

 

MIATA has two main goals that will be addressed in a two-step approach:

  1. Mid-term goal of MIATA: Establishment of a minimal information reporting framework for human T cell immune monitoring methods in scientific publications.

  2. Long-term goal of MIATA: Based on its successful implementation and substantiated feasibility and usefulness for scientific publications, adapt the reporting framework for annotations of immune monitoring data sets from human studies for a central database, possibly in the context of a Human Immunity Project [1]. This may include structured database vocabulary. ([1] Leslie M. Immunology uncaged. Science 327; 26 March 2010, 1573)

We want to emphasize that MIATA does not impose the use of any standardized protocol or reagents nor does it encourage or discourage any specific grade of assay validation since this would potentially be an obstacle to innovation and improvement of testing procedures. MIATA concentrates on defining the content and structure of information reported from immunoassays. Any recommendation in the 5 proposed Modules is strictly based on supporting published data.

This MIATA website is the official, yet independent tool to reach the intermediate and long-term goal with:

  1. Listing of finalized MIATA modules
  2. Tools to integrate MIATA into publications including example reports, MIATA checklist, and definition of terms
  3. Listing of previous, already updated MIATA modules
  4. Comments and input from the field collected during the publication consultation phase, workshops and webinars
  5. Listing of all contributors

The final MIATA guidelines are now published in Immunity: C.M. Britten, S. Janetzki, L.H. Butterfield, G. Ferrari, C. Gouttefangeas, C. Huber, M. Kalos, H.I. Levitsky, H.T. Maecker, C.J.M. Melief, J. O’Donnell-Tormey, K. Odunsi, L.J. Old, T.H.M. Ottenhoff, C. Ottensmeier, G. Pawelec, M. Roederer, B.O. Roep, P. Romero, S.H. Van der Burg, S. Walter, A. Hoos, and M.M. Davis, T Cell Assays and MIATA: The Essential Minimum for Maximum Impact, Immunity (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2012.07.010

 

The 5 proposed modules as listed in Immunity are shown below and can be found in detailed description elsewhere on this website:

 

Table S1. Modules of MIATA Guidelines

Module 1

Minimal Information on the Sample

1A: The Donor


Required:

-  Report all available donor information that is important for the interpretation of the data in the specific study context (e.g., age, gender, immuno-competentence, many others), see examples.

1B: The Source and Processing:

Required:

-  Report the source of the cell material and collection methodology including anti-coagulants, where applicable.

-  Report the conditions (e.g., temperature) the unprocessed specimen samples were transported / stored at if available, including cut-offs* if they were used.

-  Report basic information of the methodology used for cell processing (e.g., density gradient centrifugation).

-  Report the median time and time ranges from sample collection (e.g., venipuncture) until end of cell processing (e.g. until beginning of cryopreservation or assay) if available, including cut-offs if they were used.

1C: Cryopreservation and Storage

Required:

-  Report whether fresh or cryopreserved material was used for testing.

-  In case of cryopreservation, report basic information on freezing process and medium (e.g., serum-supplemented or serum-free, self-made or commercial source) used for freezing of cell material.

-  Report the median time + temperature for each storing or transportation step of the processed samples, if available, including cut-offs* if they were used.

1D: Cell Counting

Required:

-  Report median cell yield and viability, where available, including cut-offs* if they were used:

  • before freezing,
  • after thawing,
  • after overnight resting.

-  Report basic information on the methodology used for cell counting.

Optional:

Report additional assessments, if performed (e.g., apoptosis assessment).

 

 

 

Module 2

Minimal Information on the Assay

2A: Medium/serum


Required:

-  Report details about all media and sera (if applicable) used (e.g., source).

-  Report whether the medium or serum were pretested for assay performance.

2B: The Assay:

Required:

-  Report details about treatment procedures of cells prior to assay (e.g., in vitro stimulation, overnight resting), if applicable.

-  Report details about assay procedures including all reagents and materials used, that would allow the repetition of the assay by others. (Example reports: ICS, Elispot, Multimer)

2C: Controls:

Required:

-  Report details on all internal assay controls employed (e.g., mitogenic stimulation with PHA, control peptide pools) including any assay acceptance criteria associated with their use, if available.

-  Report details on external reference samples used (e.g., reference PBMC, T-cell line) including any assay acceptance criteria associated with their use, if available.

 

Module 3

Data acquisition


3A: Equipment and Software

Required:

-  Describe the equipment and software version used for data acquisition (Flow Cytometer, Elispot Reader, other).

-  Report on basic settings of the equipment that enable the understanding of reported results, if available (for flow cytometry examples see MIFlowCyt, Section 3.3).

3B: Acquisition Strategy and Gating

Required:

-  Provide a detailed description of the applied gating strategy (Flow cytometry) or strategy of establishing parameters for spot detection (ELISpot).

-  Display a representative raw data set (e.g., FACS plots or ELISpot photos).

-  Report the mean, median and ranges of the event counts for the most relevant cell populations acquired, if available.

Optional:

-  In case an unusual gating strategy was applied comment on why the specific strategy was chosen.

-  State if raw data were checked for data consistency and plausibility.

Module 4

The (interpretation of) results

4A: Raw Data


Required:

-  Provide the means, medians and ranges for both background (as per your lab definition and if applicable) and antigen-specific reactivity levels, if available.

-  In studies with pre-defined specifications (e.g., for background and specific reactivity levels, minimal event counts or cell number/well) provide the cut-off values for failure/pass and indicate how many tests were out of specification (OOS).

-  Provide a statement on the accessibility status of raw data of the assay:

  • Raw data is provided (e.g., in main article, supplemental data or online database).

or

  • Raw data can be provided per request. or
  • Raw data cannot be provided due to confidentiality agreements, corporate policy, other conflicts.

4B: Response determination, statistical tests and empirical rules

Required:

-  Describe how a positive reactivity (above background) for a given sample was defined including the statistical test(s) and/or empirical rule(s) applied.

-  Provide information on parameters (e.g., p-value, confidence interval), software and software version applied to support response determination, if applicable.

-  Provide a statement whether response definition criteria were pre-defined (before study), or defined post-hoc (after data were collected).

-  Provide the definition used to indicate that a response is induced by the treatment used.

-  Provide information on whether any data was excluded from the analysis, and if so the reason for the exclusion, if applicable.

Optional:

-  Add an explanation for the choice of test(s) applied whenever there is a strong scientific base for doing so.

 

Module 5

The laboratory environment

5A: General Laboratory Operation

Required:

-  Include a general descriptive statement about how laboratory operations are guided (GMP, GLP, GcLP, exploratory research, other), such as: These studies were conducted in a laboratory that operates under _________ principles.  This statement should cite a published reference that describes the standard, if applicable.

-  Include a general descriptive statement about any laboratory accreditations and certifications (e.g., CLIA, CAP), if applicable, such as:  The laboratory in which these studies were conducted has the following certifications: ________.

Optional:

-  If laboratory is subject to regulatory audits by external agencies, list that information, specifying the agency, the procedure the audit was intended to evaluate, and the dates of the last audit.

5B: Laboratory Procedure Standardization

Required:

-  Include a descriptive statement about the status of the methodological protocols (investigative protocols, established laboratory protocols, standard operating protocols, other) employed to generate the reported data sets, and the scope (which parts of the experiments) such as: These studies (or specific parts thereof) were performed using ______________ protocols.

Note: This description can be included in this module, or added to the assay specific sections described in modules 1,2, 3,4.

5C: Status of Assay Qualification and Validation

Required:

-  Include a descriptive statement about the status of the assays employed (general research investigative, qualified, validated, other) to generate the reported data sets, such as: These studies were performed using _______________ assays.

Note: This description can be included in this module, or added to the assay specific sections described in modules 1,2, 3,4)

Optional:

-  Specific performance criteria (e.g., Precision, Limit of Detection, etc.) for the assays employed may be described.

 

* Definition “cut-off”: Parameter that has to be met so that the assay read-out can be accepted.

The MIATA project was supported by the Wallace Coulter Foundation (Florida, USA) and the Cancer Research Institute (New York, USA).

 

The following organizations and institutes have supported MIATA throughout the consensus process:


CIP logo

The Immunoguiding Program (CIP) of the Association of Immunotherapy of Cancer (CIMT) supports the MIATA concept and its public consultation approach.

 

 

 

 


CIC logoThe Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium (CIC) of the  Cancer  Research Institute (CRI) supports the MIATA concept and its public consultation approach.

 


himc logo


The Human Immune Monitoring Center (HIMC)) of Stanford University supports the MIATA concept and its public consultation approach.

 


NIBIT logo

The Network Italiano per la Bioterapia dei Tumori (NIBIT) supports the MIATA concept and its public consultation approach.

 

 

 

 

 

DartlogoThe Immunassay and Flow Cytometry Shared Resource (DartLab) of Dartmouth Medical School supports the MIATA concept and its public consultation approach.

 
miataproject.org, Powered by Joomla! and designed by SiteGround Joomla Templates