Swanson, Jay

Abstract Background Lymphocyte function and immune competence can be measured by proliferative response to stimuli and is useful in several clinical contexts including primary (or genetic) and secondary immunodeficiencies (e.g., immunosuppression following transplantation). Proliferation assays have traditionally been prepared manually due to the difficulty in maintaining the sterile environment required to prevent bacterial and fungal impact on cell growth. On most automated liquid handlers, the sample and reagents are placed inside a cabinet whose inner surfaces include rails, pullies, pumps, and circuitry that face the sample and are not amenable to sterilization. The Andrew+ (Waters, MA) is a small surface cleanable liquid handler with all machinery enclosed. We demonstrate here the use of an Andrew+ placed in a biological safety cabinet (BSC) to perform sterile assay setup. Methods Peripheral blood monocytes (PBMCs) from five individuals were manually generated via buffy coat isolation, then brought to standardized concentration. An Andrew+ was placed in a 4’ BSC and all surfaces disinfected with Oxivir Tb (Diversey, SC). The Andrew+ prepared three serial dilutions of two stimulant reagents (phytohemagglutinin (PHA) and pokeweed (PWM)), then dispensed stimulant and control reagents horizontally and PBMCs vertically to a 48 well plate. This process was duplicated manually from the same specimens to create a reference plate. The plates were incubated at 37°C and 5% CO2 for three days, then pulsed with EdU (Thermo Fisher, MA) and incubated for one additional day. Cells were harvested and counted via flow cytometry. Overall time and hands-on time were measured. Results A total of five samples were tested inside a using both manual and automation setup under eight conditions including with isotype control, media without stimulant, three concentrations of PHA, and three concentrations of PWM. The percent proliferation for various cell types as induced by each stimulant was calculated from the difference of the highest stimulant signal from the background (media-only) signal. Comparing the automated and manual method results showed a slope of 1.0217 and R2 of 0.9966. For a simulated run of 6 samples, technologist time for automated steps was under 8 minutes with a total time of 56 minutes. When these steps were performed manually, the time was 30 minutes. Automation increased total time by 26 minutes but saved 22 minutes of technologist hands-on time. Conclusion The Andrew+ was able to perform sterile setup of a cell culture assay. While slower overall than manual processing, technologist time was reduced. Ergonomic, inter-tech variability, and sample transcription error issues were subjectively observed to be less likely. The Andrew+ can work with up to four “dominos” (reagent or tip blocks) in width and up to three dominos in depth. Non-custom, standard depth BSCs from a variety of manufacturers (Labconco, Nuaire, ThermoFisher) have room for one domino in depth so, except for timings performed in this evaluation, all steps were broken down to be performed with a max of four dominos. Efficient sterile use of the system would require an extended depth BSC.