RE>>data display 9/30/97
I whole heartedly second this idea. One of the major problems interpreting
flow cytometry data in journals (aside from bad comps. etc.) is the lack of
information as to the data collected. In some cases there are not even AXES
and we have to guess either log or linear. It's hard enough for those of us
who are familiar with flow data. You should sit in on journal clubs where
graduate students and faculty are presenting papers with heavy flow data.
Total chaos!
The necessary information should be included in the Materials & Methods and
/or Figure legends. Actually International Immunology has a pretty good set
of guidelines for information on FACS data. These include software used for
analyses, the type of data displayed, number of events the display is based
upon, any gates used for the data (live/dead etc.), basis for negative
controls and so on. Apart from individual's preferences for contours vs.
dots, providing this information in the papers would help all of us accurately
evaluate each others data , which is the whole purpose of papers. Hopefully
other journals can adopt such guidelines and more importantly that they are
enforced.
Alan Stall
--------------------------------------
Date: 9/30/97 1:17 PM
To: cyto-inbox
From: Houston, Jim
To all:
To cut down on all the misleading infor that is portrayed through flow
data, would it not be wise for those that use them in publications to
explain what method they are using. This info could contain the
software used the number of dots displayed, smoothing info, threshold,
contour specifics etc. There are more flow users and readers of flow
related articles than ever before. Why do we not give them more info
about the data that is displayed?
Jim Houston
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:50:11 EST