Choosing an elispot plate reader: why spot counting is an image analysis problem rather than an optical one, what the counting parameters have to be locked to before a study, and the controls that make a spot count comparable between plates and laboratories

Choosing the reader and fixing the counting

1. Judge it on the counting, not the optics. Every reader images a well adequately. What separates them is how the software separates a genuine spot from a speckle, how it handles merged spots in a high responder, and how reproducibly it does both. Ask to run your own plates, including a high responder.
2. Lock the counting parameters before the study starts. Size, intensity and gradient thresholds decide the count. Set them on representative plates, freeze them, and apply the same template to every plate in the study. Adjusting parameters per plate is adjusting the result.
3. Require a per-well image that a person can audit. The count has to be checkable. A reader that stores the image with the count lets somebody look at a surprising well; one that reports only numbers leaves an outlier unexplainable.
4. Put a positive control on every plate. A polyclonal stimulus well on each plate shows the cells responded and the detection worked. A plate with no response and no positive control cannot be distinguished from a plate where the assay failed.
5. Standardise plate handling, because it shows up in the count. Washing, drying and the time between development and reading all change spot appearance. Dry plates fully and read them in a consistent window, and record the reading date with the count.

Cell input is the variable that dominates

Spot counts scale with the number of cells plated, so counting and viability before plating decide comparability more than anything downstream. A viability difference between donors becomes a response difference if input is not normalised.

Report counts per fixed number of input cells and record the viability. Raw spot counts per well are not comparable between samples prepared on different days.

Fluorescent multiplexing

Detecting two or three cytokines from one well with different fluorophores gives far more information per precious sample, and it needs a reader with the right filters and a counting algorithm that handles overlapping spots.

Test the multiplex counting on real plates rather than trusting the specification. Resolving two colours in one spot is the hardest thing these systems do.

Validating the assay itself

Where results support a decision, the assay needs precision, linearity with input and a defined positivity criterion established in advance. A positivity rule chosen after seeing a study's spread is not a criterion.

Run a bridging control sample across every plate and every operator. It is the only way to separate assay drift from the biology in a study that runs for months.

Common questions

What actually separates one elispot plate reader from another?

The counting software. Spot detection, how merged spots in a strong responder are resolved and how reproducible the count is between reads are what differ; the imaging is adequate on all of them.

Why do two readers give different counts?

Because different algorithms and parameter sets separate spots from background differently. Counts from two systems are not interchangeable, which is why a study should use one reader and one locked parameter template.

Should counting parameters be adjusted per plate?

No. Set them on representative plates before the study and freeze them. Adjusting per plate means the analysis responds to the result, which is the hardest kind of bias to detect afterwards.

What controls does an ELISpot plate need?

A negative control well with no stimulus, a positive polyclonal stimulus well, and, for a study, the same donor control sample across plates. Without the positive control a negative result is uninterpretable.

Browse by service class

• Compare Gene synthesis on advertised prices