ID	Author	Additional comments
1	James Gulley	This looks very good.
2	Simone Joosten	I have read the updated modules 1 and 2 and I think you have done a great job in summarizing all extensive discussions we have had.
9	Guido Ferrari	The proposed parameters that are required for each module are fine with me. I don't have any other comment. Well done.
10	Bart Roep	Your report seems very acceptable, feasible and logical to me. Good job.
12	Tania Kollgaard	We have been through your Miata version 1 - had nothing to add at all! We find it "very mature" - and very nice as a framework
13	Tina Dalgaard	I have spent a little time on the MIATA website and I find it very useful. It is a good inspiration even for us who work in veterinary immunology. In general, I am very pleased but when first reading the modules - I missed some of the flow cytometry issues - until I realized that it is covered by MIFlowCyt. MIATA is a very nice piece of work, so far.
14	Michele Miao and Nughus Nicolay	We find the report clear and acceptable
15	Marcella Sarzotti-Kelsoe	Current Miata Modules and the consensus so far. I agree with most of them. My congratulations to the MIATA team for their great efforts
21	Dolores Schendel	The MIATA project is very important for raising the visibility of the immune monitoring field and demonstrating how coordinated efforts through the exchange of information and best practices will help us all to move immunotherapy forward. By pooling our scientific and technological expertise in MIATA, we work for the good of our scientific field and provide a dynamic platform to improve the tools of immune monitoring
22	Nathalie Blachere	I am very impressed with the MIATA project. What a beautiful project!  I recommend to think about creating a repository of extensive reports following MIATA guidelines that are openly accessible to the public and that can be referred back to when reporting results. This will help make differences in protocols and results more transparent.
23	Julie Nielsen	I'm impressed with the revised MIATA guidelines. I have nothing to add at this time
25	Jianda Yuan	Congratulation again.  With your leading effort on this project,  the MIATA Version 1.0 is much better than Version 0.
26	Cristina Musselli	I have no comments on the Miata guidelines - I think they are complete and clear.
27	Joanne Parker	In general, I like the document much better know that it has Required and optional categories.  I also like the formatting. It is easy to read and understand. I would like to see more of a purpose in the opening paragraph. It currently states that the purpose is the reporting framework for publications of human immune monitoring T cell studies. What is missing is why this is important or why do we want this framework. I think it should state that these reporting frameworks will then allow for others to compare results from different therapeutics and decide if they are comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges. It also gives details so that others can reproduce the assays. It also lets others see differences in the assays that they are performing which could lead to potentially different results. I think there needs to be this purpose so that people see these guidelines in a positive light not that anyone is trying to point fingers about the way assays are being run or data is being interpreted.
31	Gerold Schuler and Stefanie Gross	We are really happy with the new Version of the MIATA guidelines, really great job! The new Version1 of the MIATA guidelines should now be applicable for every lab dealing with t cells
32	Michael Kalos	Version 1 is a substantive improvement on version 0.   Comments from the community during the initial consultation phase and the workshops have significantly streamlined and strengthened these guidelines.  No significant criticism from me on these modules.  I look forward to further refinement of the MIATA guidelines through this consultation process and the upcoming FOCIS workshop and to begin to see broader implementation of these guidelines in publications
35	Guido Ferrari	I had the opportunity to take a look at the document and it looks fine to me. A lot of comments, all very appropriate have been posted, and I think we are in good shape there
37	Holger Wenschuh	In addition, I think that such details compiled by the experts in the field would clearly add to the value of the MIATA endeavour
38	Cedrik Britten	From many discussions on the content of MIATA modules over the last 18 months, I understood that a significant fraction of expert investigators for good reasons were asking for more detailed information in the “required” part of MIATA on one hand. On the other hand a large fraction of investigators were strongly against expanding the framework to a point where reporting of assay results would become “too much of a burden”.  At the beginning of the project I was in strong favor for the expansion of MIATA to capture results on all (!) critical aspects of T cell assays. In the last months I have changed my position and I am now more in favor of a “leaner” version of MIATA as acceptability and feasibility should be considered as being equally important for the success of MIATA as the quest to generate a framework capturing comprehensive explanations on every single detail of T cell assays. Whenever adding new parts to the required part will have the likelihood to reduce the chance that MIATA will become broadly acceptable and easily applicable, I strongly recommend adding any new aspects to the “optional” part. Many expert labs will probably decide to provide information on the “optional” part in the future. Expanding the required part might lead to opposition against MIATA that might prevent the adoption rate in the scientific community
39	Henrik Pedersen	In general, we think as many comments and specifications should be included as possible. The time going into the experiments or clinical trials is so much more than the time it takes to specify reagents, protocols etc, wherefore details should be given. We think. Generally: For each of the steps in each of the modules, an appropriately detailed protocol, including specification of all reagents and materials used, should be prepared that would allow others to understand and repeat the analysis and reach the same conclusion. It should be stated how many times the entire experiment (modules 1-5, or at least module 2-5) has been independently performed on each sample (e.g. duplicate analysis).
40	Paola Nistico	The research community agrees that the T cell immune monitoring represents a pillar for further studies of mechanisms, enabling the understanding of the immune response and the possibility of manipulating it in disease. The efforts of the MIATA proposal to establish minimal information of T cell immune monitoring to include in scientific publication, are so relevant in the field that all the investigators should contribute with constructive suggestion.
41	Shane Larson	I will say that the resources on the MIATA website have been extremely helpful- from blood collection/processing to assay development/qualification and even statistics. Even though I read through all of the papers after the bulk of our assay development it mirrored (in some papers, almost exactly) how we approached it here at Genocea, which gave us confidence in the power of our assays
43	Staffan Paulie	In agreement with many earlier comments, I think the MIATA guidelines will become a very useful tool and framework that will help both the researcher when planning and designing a study and the reader when evaluating reported data
44	Adrian Bot	The modules look great and the most relevant aspects that will finally determine the performance of T cell immune assays have been adequately addressed. The checklist also appears to be balanced in terms of the amount of requested information which should make it feasible to implement MIATA easily. Another issue that I would like to raise is whether a refinement of the assays is needed to capture more relevantly the appropriate immune effector cells as needed? Unfortunately, the correlation between the "immune response" as measured by more robust, standardized methods and clinical outcome respectively, have been less than optimal. It is clear that we (as a field) do not understand entirely what we need to monitor for. This is further complicated by the fact that distinct immune interventions may deploy different mechanisms of action. Perhaps emerging investigational therapies that afford a higher rate of clinical response would prove essential to elucidate what exactly we need to monitor in man? This question seems as important to me as the  quest for structuring reports from commonly used T cell immune monitoring assays.
45	Jo Cox	The contributors to MIATA are to be congratulated on the guidelines which are comprehensive and far reaching in scope.  Implementation will eventually lead to improved reporting of immunology data and allow cross-trial comparisons. Many excellent comments have been already posted and there is not much new to be contributed. My biggest concern remains how will these recommendations be implemented? Experienced reviewers will be able to recommend that authors revise manuscripts according to the MIATA guidelines but so far few journals have started imposing the new guidelines.  Open access journals should be able to implement the MIATA guidelines reasonably easily since they already insist on documentation such as clinical protocols and CONSORT diagrams supplied as supplementary information or included in the manuscript.  The MIATA workshop will need to seriously address how non-specialist journals will be able to monitor compliance.   Can a check-list be developed with the ‘required’ and ‘optional’ information needed which authors would be asked to submit as supplementary information.  A check list would be easy to implement and review. A  check list would allow data mining across studies
46	Chris Taylor	I am enormously encouraged by the continued enthusiasm for the further development of MIATA and by the obviously broad participation from within the relevant community. Certainly the project fills a gap in the market that would otherwise remain. I understand that comments continue to pour in both through the excellent web site and the series of meetings. Good communication with the ultimate consumers of your product is the life blood of a standardisation project. This follows best practice in standards development and I applaud your continued dedication to doing things 'the right way'.  As for MIATA itself: in general, I am pleased to see that through the use of fairly general phrases you encourage debate -- to be too concise in a draft specification can discourage participation, because the project might appear to be finished, whereas the style of the current draft makes clear that there is still room for debate. The corollary is of course that when the content is more settled, more specific detail would be better (especially in your optional sections)  -- certainly from the point of view of an implementer of such guidelines it can be difficult to turn general statements into data entry fields in software or a database (MIAME offers a salutory lesson there -- a recent paper from GEO expressd their regret that while they would like to be able to confirm MIAME compliance in submissions to that database, they feel unable to properly verify compliance as MIAME is couched in such general terms). Additionally, once you reach the final validation stage, specificity will reduce the room for misinterpretation by reviewers and users, ensuring that you get the comments you need to be sure you got it right. I believe you have pitched MIATA at an appropriate level; certainly it is broadly comparable to documents such as MIAPE and MIFlowCyt in neither asking for excessive detail nor too little; by this I mean that the completion of a MIATA-compliant report would not seem to be particularly onerous as the guidelines currently stand. (Incidentally, where flow cytometry is employed in a T cell assay will you refer people to MIFlowCyt?) Where you overlap with equivalent guidelines you seem to have settled on a similar level of  detail, which I see as validation (for example, to be in broad agreement on such things as the desciption of a sample). I see little to criticise excepting a few forgiveable typos. So to sum up, I would like to congratulate you and your collaborators on your continued progress with MIATA, on your efforts to engage the community you seek to serve, and on your continued commitment as a valued member of the MIBBI project.
48	Sebastian Kreiter	The goal to reach a community wide consensus about a reporting framework for immune monitoring is of high importance and the progress made so far is impressive. A major issue for successful implementation will be to provide tools allowing a fast and straightforward provision of the required data (e.g. checklists).