Method for epigenetic immune cell counting

Abstract

The present invention relates to improved methods for epigenetic blood and immune cell counting, and respective uses and kits.

Claims

1. A method for determining the absolute copy number of an immune cell type per volume of sample, comprising the steps of: A) determining blood immune cells (BIC) per volume of the sample by a) providing a defined volume of a sample of human blood comprising diploid genomic DNA of blood immune cells; b) providing an in silico bisulfite-converted recombinant nucleic acid comprising at least one demethylation standard gene, and a sequence inversing all CpG dinucleotides to GpC of the at least one demethylation standard gene (“standard I”), wherein the demethylation standard gene is selected from a gene expressed in all cells to be detected; c) providing a recombinant nucleic acid comprising demethylated genomic sequence of the at least one demethylation standard gene of b), and a sequence inversing all CpG dinucleotides to GpC of the at least one demethylation standard gene of b) (“calibrator I”); d) providing a recombinant nucleic acid comprising the sequence inversing all CpG dinucleotides to GpC of the at least one demethylation standard gene of b) (“spiker I”); e) adding a defined amount of said recombinant nucleic acid of d) to the sample of a) (“spiking”); f) treating said diploid genomic DNA of the cells to be quantitated from a) and the recombinant nucleic acids of c) and d) with bisulfite to convert unmethylated cytosines into uracil: g) amplifying of said nucleic acids b), c), and f) using suitable primer pairs to produce at least one amplicon pair selected from the group consisting of AMP1570 with at least one of AMP1255, 2000, 2001, 2007, 2249, 2674, 1405, 1406, and 1408; and h) identifying the blood immune cells (BIC) per volume of sample based on analyzing said amplicon pair(s) as produced in step g), B) determining a fraction of demethylation per all cells (DDC) in the sample by i) providing a sample of human blood comprising diploid genomic DNA of blood cells to be quantitated; j) providing an in silico bisulfite-converted recombinant nucleic acid comprising at least one demethylation standard gene, wherein said demethylation standard gene is selected from a gene expressed in all cells to be detected, and at least one blood cell specific gene (“standard II”); k) providing a recombinant nucleic acid comprising the demethylated genomic sequence of said at least one demethylation standard gene of j), and of said at least one blood cell specific gene of j) (“calibrator II”); l) treating said diploid genomic DNA of the cells to be quantitated of i) and said recombinant nucleic acid of k) with bisulfite to convert unmethylated cytosines into uracil; m) amplifying of said nucleic acids of j), k), and l) using suitable primer pairs to produce at least one amplicon pair selected from the group consisting of AMP1570 with at least one of AMP1255, 2000, 2001, 2007, 2249, 2674, 1405, 1406, and 1408; and n) identifying the fraction of demethylation per all cells (DDC) based on analyzing said amplicon pair(s) as produced in step m), and C) Multiplying the BIC as identified with the DDC as identified, and thereby determining the absolute copy number of the immune cell type per volume of sample.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein said blood immune cell is selected from a leukocyte, a T-lymphocyte, a granulocyte, a monocyte, a B-lymphocyte and/or an NK-cell.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein said recombinant nucleic acid is selected from a plasmid, a yeast artificial chromosome (YAC), human artificial chromosome (HAC), PI-derived artificial chromosome (PAC), a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC), and a PCR-product.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein said demethylation standard gene is selected from a gene expressed in all cells to be detected and is a housekeeping gene.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein said blood immune cell specific gene is expressed in all blood immune cells to be detected.

6. The method of claim 3, wherein said blood sample is selected from peripheral blood samples, capillary blood samples, peripheral blood monocytes, blood clots, or dried blood spots.

7. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of concluding on the immune status of a mammal based on the absolute copy number of the immune cell type per volume of sample as determined.

8. The method of claim 4, wherein the housekeeping gene is GAPDH.

9. The method of claim 5, wherein the gene expressed in all blood immune cells is CD4.

Description

(1) FIG. 1 shows the DNA methylation profile of marker genes in purified immune cell populations. The matrix shows cell type-specific DNA methylation patterns of seven marker genes and of the reference gene GAPDH. In the matrix, immune cell types are arranged in columns as indicated at the x-axis. Genes and corresponding amplicons (Amp) are indicated at the y-axis. Genes are separated by red lines with each row representing a single CpG site. Measured CpG methylation levels are color coded according to the color scale ranging from yellow (0% methylation) to blue (100% methylation).

(2) FIG. 2 shows a schematic overview over the different quantification approaches for epigenetic cell counting. For all approaches, the inventors assumed a simplified 2-allels-to-1-cell relation. Each analyzed gene in this invention was autosomal (i.e., diploid), and has been shown to be demethylated in one specific cell type (in this scheme: the CD4 locus in CD4.sup.+ T helper cells) whereas completely methylated in all other blood cell types. A) sketches the process for locus-specific relative percentage quantification. In blood samples with an unknown number (#) of demethylated and methylated diploid genomic DNA copies, a bisulfite conversion transfers the epigenetic methylation status into the primary sequence by exclusively converting demethylated Cytosins into Uracils. In CpG positions, methylated and demethylated cytosins occur depending on specific gene regulation. Converted Uracil-DNA is CpG-methylation status specific amplified by qPCR, whereby Uracil basepairs with adenosine resulting in an amplificate containing TpG dinucleotides at originally demethylated regions. qPCRs then allow counting of copy numbers as based on the calculation of serially diluted in silico converted plasmids by a linear interpolation (f-1) of the amplification results (f). Relative percentage methylation at the genomic locus is calculated by the interpolated copy number of originally demethylated copies at this locus divided by all copies at this locus, i.e., the methylated and demethylated ones. Conversion in the biological sample perturbs the integrity of the genomic DNA, whereas the plasmid represents the amplification product and not the substrate. The resulting difference in amplification efficiency is given by an unknown “conversion factor, (CF)”. It is considered negligible when comparing amplification of two highly homologous sequences with few methylation-status dependent SNPs. For universal relative percentage qPCR (B), the same principles for epigenetic quantification are employed with regard to using an in silico converted plasmid standard, its interpolation and a cell type specific demethylated gene locus. Instead of the assessment of the cell specifically demethylated locus, the universally demethylated GAPDH locus representative for all cells is amplified. Using this as quantification reference all specific loci can be normalized to the overall genomic copy count. CF cannot be assumed to be similar in this case, as no homology between the different sequences is assumed. Relative demethylation per all cells is therefore disturbed by the presence of differing CFs. Compensating the influence of different conversion efficiencies, a calibrator plasmid is introduced as indicated in C). It contains equimolar genomics sequences of all relevant cell-specific loci and GAPDH. Interpolation of the amplification provides copy numbers for interference of differing conversion-specific efficiencies. The ratio of the differing copy numbers provides an efficiency factor (EF) that can be used to eliminate conversion related differences between standards and samples. Incorporating EF into (B) provides for definitive copy number quantification. D) For counting cells per volume of blood, a defined volume of blood is supplemented with known copy number of plasmid containing a synthetic, not natural DNA sequence (GAP-GC). Relative quantification using the in silico converted plasmid and calculation of EF operates as indicated above. Interpolating the starting amount of GAP-GC allows monitoring of DNA preparation, conversion and qPCR provides a good estimator for process efficacy. Calculation of the starting amount of blood cells therewith becomes possible.

(3) FIG. 3 shows the comparison of immune cell quantification by flow cytometry and epigenetic qPCR in blood from 25 healthy donors. Immune cells as measured via flow cytometry (y-axis) were scatter plotted over corresponding values determined via immune cell type specific epigenetic qPCR analysis (x-axis). A) shows relative immune cell counting where values are given in percent among total leukocytes. Linear Pearson correlation coefficients were r=0.95. B) displays absolute immune cell counting where values are expressed as cell number per μl of blood featuring a correlation of r=0.95. The red line represents the regression line computed from all data points, the black line indicates the bisectrix. Symbols in the right-hand legend illustrate the different individual immune cell populations.

(4) FIG. 4 shows the method comparison between flow cytometry and epigenetic qPCR analysis of T-cell subsets in a HIV cohort. A) illustrates the comparison of relative immune cell counts (as expressed in % related to total nucleated cells). The large graph shows a scatter plot of three T cell populations analyzed via epigenetic qPCR analysis (x-axis) and flow cytometry (y-axis). The lines in black and red represent the bisectrix and the regression line, respectively. Linear correlation coefficient according to Pearson was r=0.982 (p<0.0001). The small graphs display a Bland-Altman analysis where the mean cell count (in %) as averaged between each epigenetic and cytometric measurement (x-axis) was plotted over their (relative) difference (y-axis). In each Bland-Altman plot, the upper and lower red lines reflect the limits of concordance and the central red line illustrates the systematic bias. Above and below each red line, the 95% confidence interval is shown as dotted grey lines. Upper Bland-Altman panel: Total T cells; bias: 6.43%; lower limit of agreement: −9.15%; upper limit of agreement: 22.02%. Middle panel: Cytotoxic T cells; bias: 11.23%; lower limit of agreement: −15.36%; upper limit of agreement: 37.83%. Bottom right: Helper T cells; bias: −6.04%; lower limit of agreement: −41.34%; upper limit of agreement: 29.25%. B) shows the comparison of absolute immune cell counts (as expressed in cells per μl blood). Left side: Scatter plot analysis; Pearson r=0.955 (p<0.0001). Right side: Bland-Altman analysis: Upper panel: Total T cells; bias: −4.76%; lower limit of agreement: −39.62%; upper limit of agreement: 30.09%. Middle panel: Cytotoxic T cells; bias: 0.03%; lower limit of agreement: −35.78%; upper limit of agreement: 35.83%. Bottom right: Helper T cells; bias: −17.61%; lower limit of agreement: −59.68%; upper limit of agreement: 24.46%.

(5) FIG. 5 shows the analysis of control Guthrie cards and PID cases with epigenetic markers for CD3+ T cells, CD19+ B cells, CD56+ NK cells (as well as CD4 and CD8 T cells below). Healthy controls are given in grey dots and 99% (blue) and 99.9% (red) confidence intervals of a bivariate normal distribution are estimated from log transformed copy numbers. Measurement data of the test cohort are given as numbers and color-coded according to phenotype.

EXAMPLES

(6) Abbreviations: Amp, amplicon; qPCR, quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction; FCM, flow cytometry; HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. RD.sub.ls, locus-specific relative demethylation; RD.sub.u, universal relative demethylation; DD.sub.u, universal definitive demethylation; LC, leukocyte count; CF, conversion factor.

(7) Leukocyte populations. Peripheral blood samples were obtained from healthy donors and fractionated into CD15.sup.+ granulocytes, CD14.sup.+ monocytes, CD56.sup.+ natural killer cells, CD19.sup.+ B-lymphocytes, CD3.sup.+CD4.sup.+ T-helper cells and CD3.sup.+CD8.sup.+ cytotoxic T cells by high-speed fluorescence activated cell sorting as described previously (16). Purities of sorted cells were >97% as determined by flow cytometry and viability was >99%.

(8) Peripheral whole blood samples. EDTA-anticoagulated peripheral blood samples were collected from 25 healthy subjects from each one blood draw, 97 HIV.sup.+ patients under treatment (each one blood draw) in a German outpatient clinic and 26 patients with (acute myeloid) leukemia from San Raffaele University Hospital receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. From the latter cohort 92 blood draws from conditioning phase to 180 days post transplantation were made. All samples were subjected in parallel to epigenetic qPCR analysis and to standard flow cytometry analysis for immune cell quantification (see below) without need for additional venipuncture according to Medical device act. Ethical consent was given at the according institutions. For epigenetic analysis, all data were blinded to experimenters. For diagnostic FACS analysis, samples were not blinded.

(9) DNA preparation. For sequencing and qPCR analysis of purified immune cells, genomic DNA was isolated using DNeasy tissue kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's instructions. In all other applications, blood samples were forwarded to a one-tube lysis and bisulfite conversion without preceding DNA preparation.

(10) Bisulfite conversion. For conversion of purified genomic or plasmid DNA, the EpiTect Fast Bisulfite Conversion Kit (Qiagen) was used following the manufactures protocol. For direct bisulfite conversion of whole blood, 20 μl of EDTA anti-coagulated blood (or calibrator plasmid) was mixed with 16 μl lysis buffer, 3 μl proteinase K (Qiagen) and, where appropriate, 1 μl of GAP.sup.[GC] spiker plasmid yielding 20,000 copies/μl blood followed by incubation at 59° C. for 10 minutes. For conversion, 90 μl ammonium bisulfite (68-72%, pH 4.8-5.3, Chemos AG) and 30 μl tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (Sigma-Aldrich) were added. Conversion and purification of converted DNA was carried out according to the “EpiTect Fast Bisulfite Conversion Kit” protocol.

(11) Bisulfite sequencing. PCR-amplification was performed in a final volume of 25 μl containing 1×PCR Buffer, 1U Taq DNA polymerase (Qiagen), 200 μM dNTPs, 12.5 pmol each of forward and reverse primers, and approx. 10 ng of bisulfite-converted genomic DNA at 95° C. for 15 minutes and 40 cycles of 95° C. for 1 minute, 55° C. for 45 seconds and 72° C. for 1 minute and a final extension step of 10 minutes at 72° C. PCR products were purified using ExoSAP-IT (USB Corp.) and sequenced applying one PCR primer applying ABI Big Dye Terminator v1.1-chemistry (Applied Biosystems) followed by capillary electrophoresis on an ABI 3100 genetic analyzer. AB1 files were interpreted using ESME (18).

(12) Epigenetic qPCR analysis. Experiments were performed in a final volume of 10 μl using Roche LightCycler 480 Probes Master chemistry containing 50 ng lambda-phage DNA (New England Biolabs) and up to 100 ng converted DNA template or an adequate amount of plasmid. Standard concentration for each primer was at 1.5 μM, except for genomic spiker plasmid (0.75 μM). CD4.sup.+ T cell TpG assay (4.5 μM forward; 3 μM reverse primer). Standard probe concentration was at 0.25 μM except for CD4.sup.+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, NK cells and spiker plasmid (each 0.125 μM probe for TpG-specific systems). The thermal profile was 95° C. for 10 minutes followed by 50 cycles at 95° C. for 15 seconds and 61° C. for 1 minute.

(13) Plasmids. Two bisulfite-converted sequences corresponding to either the methylated or the demethylated marker regions were designed in silico, synthesized and inserted into plasmid pUC57 (Genscript Inc.) and used as positive control for assay establishment and as quantification standard for qPCR experiments. Standard plasmids harbour all assay target sequences (as TpG- or CpG-variants) and are intra-molecularly linked providing for equimolarity of all assay targets. Plasmids were spectrophotometrically quantified, linearized by Sca I and serially diluted in 10 ng/μl of lambda-phage DNA (New England Biolabs) to obtain quantification standards with 31250, 6250, 1250, 250, 50 or 30 copies per reaction. For qPCR normalization, a single calibrator plasmid was generated harbouring all assay target sequences equimolarly in the genomic unconverted demethylated version. For leukocyte quantification per μl blood, a spike-in plasmid was designed and generated carrying an unconverted artificial GAPDH gene region, which is exactly equivalent to the target of the GAPDH-specific qPCR assay but has all CpG dinucleotides inverted to GpCs (GAP.sup.[GC]).

(14) Oligonucleotides. Forward (fp), reverse (rp) primers and hydrolysis probes (p) (Metabion AG) are indicated by their chromosomal positions with respect to the human genome assembly GRCh38.p5, Release 84 (March 2016). Oligonucleotides for bisulfite sequencing: AMP1255: fp: 12:6790192-214, rp: 12:6790582-603; AMP1730: fp: 9:128149251-72, rp: 9:128149589-609; AMP2000: fp: 12:6790724-46, rp: 12:6791160-80; AMP2001: fp: 12:6791141-62, rp 12:6791535-60; AMP2007: fp: 2:86821232-54, rp 2:86821674-95; AMP2178: fp: 6:161375641-62, rp 6:161376086-108; AMP2249: fp: 11:68371460-81, rp: 11:68371926-47; AMP2674: fp: 16:88653882-902, rp: 16:88654299-88654320. Oligonucleotides for qPCR analysis: CD4: TpG: fp: 12:6790871-98, rp: 12:6791046-73, p: 12:6790998-1019; CpG: fp: 12:6790871-900, rp: 12:6791046-72, p: 12:6790997-1020. CD8B: TpG: fp: 2:86821374-1400, rp: 2:86821476-93, p: 2:86821425-52; CpG: fp: 2:86821372-1401, rp: 2:86821463-83, p: 2:86821425-55. LPRS: TpG: fp: 11:68371608-28, rp: 11:68371721-45, p: 11:68371666-84; CpG: fp: 11:68371611-35, rp: 11:68371720-48, p: 11:68371662-86. MVD: TpG: fp: 16:88654112-36, rp: 16:88654173-90, p: 16:88654136-55; CpG: fp: 16:88654111-36, rp: 16:88654172-89, p: 16:88654136-58. PARK2: TpG: fp: 6:161375730-55, rp: 6:161375851-66, p: 6:161375804-25; CpG: fp: 6:161375784-807, rp: 6:161375851-70, p: 6:161375805-830. LCN2: TpG: fp: 9:128149258-78, rp: 9:128149353-75, p: 9:128149289-309; CpG: fp: 9:128149257-77, rp: 9:128149353-76, p: 9:128149287-309. Oligonucleotides of the CD3.sup.+ T cell and GAPDH-specific amplicons and qPCR-systems have been published previously (15).

(15) Flow cytometric characterization of whole blood samples—To compare results of the epigentic analyses to standard flow cytometry, the absolute number of CD45.sup.+ leukocytes was determined after lysis of erythrocytes by a MACSQuant cytometer (Milteny Biotec, Bergisch Gladbach). In addition frequencies and absolute counts of CD15.sup.+ granulocytes, CD14.sup.+ monocytes, CD19.sup.+ B-cells, CD56.sup.+ NK cells, total CD3.sup.+T cells and CD4.sup.+ and CD8.sup.+ subsets were calculated as previously described (14,32).

(16) Statistical analysis—CP (“crossing point”) of aggregated triplicate measurements was computed by the second-derivative maximum method applying the LC480 software (Roche) to yield copy numbers (“plasmid units”) by interpolation (f−1) of amplification (f) from calibration curves generated with dilutions of plasmid-based standards. Method comparison between flow cytometric and qPCR based measuring technique was done as follows: Bivariate data from the two methods were drawn in a scatterplot. Linear Regression was performed testing a) for a slope different from 1 and b) an intercept different from 0. Bland-Altman plots were inspected analyzing bias and precision statistics (28). Acceptable precision was regarded as average deviation from the bias in percent, reflecting the in house limit on the coefficient of variation for intra assay performance, i.e., 0.2. This translates into acceptable limits of agreement of 0.4. The inventors report the estimated bias, the precision statistic and the respective 95% confidence intervals. For correlation, Pearson product-moment correlations were used. Rater agreement was evaluated using Cohens-Kappa coefficient (19). All p-values are two-sided. Statistics software R 3.3.0 was employed.

(17) Cell type-specific bisulfite-conversion. Methylation-dependent conversion of CpG-dinucleotides was analyzed by bisulfite sequencing (18) aiming at marker identification for immune cell populations sorted from human peripheral blood. Candidate loci were selected from the literature or from a genome-wide discovery experiment. As a likely marker for CD4.sup.+ T helper cells, the inventors designed three amplicons (Amp) for bisulfite sequence analysis covering regulatory elements within the 5′ region of the first intron (Amps 1255, 2000 and 2001) in the CD4 gene. Unmethylated CpG-sites are detected as TpG residues after bisulfite-conversion and amplification exclusively in the target cells, i.e., CD3.sup.+CD4.sup.+ T lymphocytes. The same CpGs were inert to bisulfite-conversion in control cell types, including CD56.sup.+ natural killer (NK) cells, CD3.sup.+CD8.sup.+ T lymphocytes, CD14.sup.+ Monocytes, CD19.sup.+ B-lymphocytes and CD15.sup.+ Granulocytes (FIG. 1). The inventors investigated the CD8B gene as a potentially apt epigenetic mark for CD8.sup.+ cytotoxic T cells by designing amplicons targeting regulatory elements within its third intron (Amp 2007). Here, bisulfite-mediated conversion of CpGs was observed exclusively in CD3.sup.+T CD8.sup.+ (target) cells whilst CpGs were inert to conversion in control cell types. Similar to data for CD8.sup.+ and CD4.sup.+ T cells, the inventors identified epigenetic marks, each uniquely demethylated in the target cell type and fully methylated in the corresponding control leukocyte populations. Amplicons corresponding to genes LRP5 (Amp2249) and MVD (Amp2674), served as epigenetic markers for B cells and NK cells, respectively. The DNA methylation profile of the intergenic CD3G and CD3D region (Amps 1405, 1406 and 1408), which constitutes a marker for CD3.sup.+ T cells and the methylation profile of GAPDH (Amp 1570) were published previously (15).

(18) Locus-specific relative qPCR measurements. Targeting the differentially methylated CpG positions described above, quantitative PCR assay systems were designed as described in the method section. The qPCR systems were characterized on in silico bisulfite converted template DNA cloned into plasmids (FIG. 2A, right panel). For the TpG template (mimicking demethylated CpGs in genomic DNA) a universal plasmid carried the target regions for all assay and an artificial GAP.sup.[GC] sequence in equimolar stoichiometry (universal TpG-plasmid), whereas the “CpG-plasmids” (mimicking methylated CpGs in genomic DNA) were designed for each amplicon individually. High technical specificity was observed with no cross-reactivity in the mutually antithetic templates (Table 1, “Plasmid-based controls”). The original copy number of the gene sequences in blood samples was estimated by relating the PCR signals from the according amplification (f) to an amplification (f) of the serially diluted plasmids (FIG. 2A). Biological assay specificity was tested on purified immune cell populations. High and low copy numbers were observed for target cell types in the TpG- and CpG-systems, respectively. Conversely, for control cell types low copy numbers were found in the TpG- and high numbers in the CpG-system. Relative demethylation at the respective gene loci (RD.sub.ls) ranged from 89.9 to 100% in target cell types and from 0.0% to 3% in controls (Table 1). Exceptions were observed for purified CD4.sup.+ T cells showing 8.9% demethylation at the CD8B locus and vice versa (i.e., 9.6% CD4 demethylation in CD8.sup.+ T cells).

(19) Universal and definitive quantification. To provide a joint basis of quantification for all cells, the demethylated GAPDH-specific amplification was analyzed together with the cell-specific TpG-systems described above (FIG. 2B). The universal TpG-plasmid served as amplification standard. With this, universal relative demethylation (RD.sub.u) in samples was determined by relating sample amplification f′ to standard amplification (f) for each marker and GAPDH. The inventors' data show that RD.sub.u does not always match with the corresponding locus-specific demethylation (RD.sub.ls). To compensate for this intrinsic systematic shift a “calibrator plasmid” was adopted harboring all assay targets in equimolar amounts and in their unconverted (i.e., demethylated) state. Efficiency differences between the individual qPCR systems that remained after standard plasmid based normalization were estimated based on the unconverted plasmid and yielded the qPCR efficiency factor (EF). The mean EFs between each cell type specific assay and GAPDH were determined in approx. 25 experiments and ranged between 0.53 for CD4 and 1.17 for CD3x and y (Table 1. EF). Application of EF on the universal relative demethylation (RD.sub.u) then allows for universal definitive demethylation quantification (DD.sub.u; FIG. 2c).

(20) Absolute quantification was established by introducing a “spike-in plasmid” harboring an artificial GAPDH sequence inversing all CpG dinucleotides to GpC (GAP.sup.[GC]) and an according qPCR assay. Substrate specificity of the GAP.sup.[GC]-specific qPCR assay was confirmed on bisulfite converted DNA from whole blood with and without spiker plasmid where no cross reactivity with the endogenous GAPDH gene was detected. In contrast, when testing the GAPDH-specific qPCR assay on the spike-in plasmid template harboring an GAP.sup.[GC] sequence no amplification signal was detected, too demonstrating a high substrate specificity, which is indispensable for an absolute quantification. For an immune cell counting, the spike-in plasmid was added to blood samples yielding a defined concentration per given initial sample volume (FIG. 2D). In addition, the artificial GAP.sup.[GC] sequence was included on the in silico bisulfite converted plasmid standard and the calibrator plasmid yielding the respective equimolarity factor (EF) of 0.87 (GAP.sup.[GC]; 0.83/0.92) used for correction.

(21) Comparative immune cell counting by flow cytometry and epigenetic qPCR. Blood samples from 25 adult healthy donors were subjected to standard flow cytometry (FCM) and epigenetic qPCR for universal quantification of CD15.sup.+ neutrophils, CD14.sup.+ monocytes, CD19.sup.+ B-cells, CD56.sup.+ NK cells, CD3.sup.+, CD4.sup.+ and CD8.sup.+ T-cells. Data from both methods were plotted against each other either as relative (FIG. 3A) or absolute counts (FIG. 3B). Scatter plots indicate for a high level of congruence between both methods with a Pearson correlation coefficient r of 0.95 (p<0.0001) for both relative and absolute quantification of leukocyte populations. The regression line comparing FCM and epigenetic qPCR for relative quantification did not significantly deviate from the bisecting line. However, a small but significantly different slope was observed for absolute quantification indicating a proportional systematic bias.

(22) To test the inventors' new approach in a real clinical setting the inventors measured blood samples from 97 HIV.sup.+ subjects with respect to quantify CD3.sup.+, CD4.sup.+ and CD8.sup.+ cell counts by standard FCM and epigenetic counting. In this invention, correlation analyses yielded Pearson r correlation coefficients ranging from 0.91 to 0.98 (p<0.0001) for relative and absolute quantification (FIG. 4). Absolute quantification was based on the spiking of the GAP.sup.[GC] plasmid into the blood samples to determine the overall leukocyte count applying the GAP.sup.[GC] specific qPCR assay system. Leukocyte numbers as determined by the FCM and epigenetic qPCR approach were highly correlated (Pearson r=0.8; p<0.0001). For the assessment of method comparability the inventors performed Bland-Altman analysis (17; FIG. 4). The systematic difference (bias) between the two methods was below 11% (relative) and 18% (absolute) for all three cell types. Moreover, non-systematic fluctuations remained under 25% for all three markers when comparing FACS to epigenetic qPCR, indicating low levels of imprecision for both approaches. According to these data, biological read-outs of FCM and epigenetic counting appeared to be well-correlated for all cell types. Sample collection and preprocessing not always warrants known volumes of blood, e.g., in dried blood spots, barring flow cytometric analysis. To test diagnostic accuracy of epigenetic qPCR in these cases, the inventors determined immune cell counts in Guthrie cards collected from 250 healthy newborns and 30 blood cards from patients with primary immune-deficiencies suffering from SCID (x patients), ADA-SCID (y) and XLA (z). Upon analysis, data were unblinded, results were compared to data obtained with TREC and KREC analysis and the available genetic analysis disclosed. As shown in FIG. 5, 13 out of 15 SCID cases lay out of the 99.9% confidence interval of the normal cohort in the CD3 to GAPDH plot, providing for a positive diagnosis alone. Case No 11 was out of the 99% CI in the B-cell analysis and out of the 99.9% CI in the NK cell analysis. SCID No 10 lay inside the “normal cohort” for the T-cell analysis, but outside the 99.9% CI in both B-cell and NK cell to GAPDH analyses. These combinations in SCID cases No 10 and 11 clearly indicating a severe alteration in the immune cell homeostatis and would require a thorough post-screening analysis. When analyzing delayed onset SCID cases, No 23 was out of the 99.9% interval, No 30 out of the 99% CI and case No. 28 appeared to be unsuspicious in the T-cell analysis. All three cases, however, were detected outside the 99.9% CI in the B-cell analysis and were at least outside the 99% CI in NK cell counts. T cell levels in XLA patients were reported outside the 99% CI for cases No 1 and 8, but all 5 cases were outside the 99% CI in B-cells with No. 1, 2, 6 and 8 outside the 99.9% CI. Also, cases 8 and 15 were outside the 99% CI for NK cells. Case No 15 was outside the 99% CI in the B-cell analysis. Healthy controls (No 12, 14 and 29) that were spiked into the tests invention were within 99% CI in all assays and control samples from patients who had previously received stem cell transplantation (No 13, 18, 20) were inside the 99% CI for T cells, but No 18 still identifies as “non-normal”. A SCID case with significant maternal engraftment is not identified in this analysis, as it appears completely unsuspicious in all analyzed markers. Finally, the analysis of CD4 and CD8 cell fractions support the findings of the CD3 marker, but do not show a significant individual added value compared to the CD3 screening. The joint analysis of the GAPDH, CD3, B-Cell and NK cell assay appears to provide information for an accurate diagnosis. As the each of the three panels is tuned to a 99% or (99.9%) CI the inventors need to correct for multiplicity and obtain via Bonferroni Correction a control of the family-wise-error-rate (a generalization of the type I error) at a level of 3% (0.3%).

(23) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Analyzed immune cell populations Target Th cytot. NK Cell gene of Plasmid based control cells T cells B cells Granu- type qPCR Amplification Quantification TpG- CpG- CD3.sup.+ CD3.sup.+ cells CD3.sup.− Monocytes locytes* specificity assay system mode variant variant Calibrator CD4.sup.+ CD8.sup.+ CD19.sup.+ CD56.sup.+ CD14.sup.+ CD15.sup.+ CD4.sup.+ CD4 TpG-system [#TpG] 30100 0 6443 4795 244 50 58 57 61 T cells CpG-system [#CpG] 0 29650 8 2300 7990 5100 3600 5335 RD.sub.ls [%] 100 0 99.8 9.6 0.6 1.1 1.6 1.1 RD.sub.u [%] 53.4 2.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 EF 0.53 DD.sub.u [%] 91.4 6.1 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.3 CD8B.sup.+ CD8B TpG-system [#TpG] 29850 0 10457 622 5845 51 36 19 37 T Cells CpG-system [#CpG] 0 27150 6400 608 11100 7375 5720 7985 RD.sub.ls [%] 100 0 8.9 90.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 RD.sub.u [%] 6.9 65.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 EF 0.87 DD.sub.u [%] 7.3 90.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 B cells LRPS TpG-system [#TpG] 30550 0 8723 2 2 9970 24 5 1 CpG-system [#CpG] 0 31500 4760 3205 1125 5105 3655 5790 RD.sub.ls [%] 100 0 0.0 0.1 89.9 0.5 0.1 0.0 RD.sub.u [%] 0.0 0.0 111.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 EF 0.72 DD.sub.u [%] 0.0 0.0 91.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 NK cells MVD TpG-system [#TpG] 27750 0 12400 150 169 170 10550 95 172 CpG-system [#CpG] 0 25750 9585 6850 16450 494 7220 11200 RD.sub.ls [%] 100 0 1.5 2.4 1.0 95.5 1.3 1.5 RD.sub.u [%] 1.7 1.9 1.9 117.5 1.1 1.9 EF 1.03 DD.sub.u [%] 1.5 2.2 1.1 101.2 1.2 1.9 CD3.sup.+ CD3 D/G TpG-system [#TpG] 33350 0 14133 12050 8320 37 59 23 28.8 T cells CpG-system [#CpG] 0 29450 4 1 13800 9505 6810 9125.0 RD.sub.ls [%] 100 0 100.0 100.0 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 RD.sub.u [%] 122.8 112.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 EF 1.17 DD.sub.u [%] 104.4 95.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 Leukocytes GAPDH TpG-system [#TpG] 12050 9815 7425 15100 10110 7655 8980 RD.sub.ls: Relative demethylation (locus specific) in %; RD.sub.u: Relative demethylation (universal) in %; EF: Efficiency factor; DD.sub.u: Definitive demethylation (universal) in %

REFERENCES AS CITED:

(24) 1.) Adan A, et al (2016) Flow cytometry: basic principles and applications. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 14:1-14.

(25) 2.) Whitby L, et al. (2015) Current laboratory practices in flow cytometry for the enumeration of CD 4(+) T-lymphocyte subsets. Cytometry B Clin Cytom.; 88(5):305-11

(26) 3.) Nebe C T, et al. (2013) Messunsicherheit and Qualitätssicherung im Bereich der Immunphänotypisierung der Lymphozytensubpopulationen im peripheren Blut. J Lab Med 37(5):233-250.

(27) 4.) Herzenberg L A, et al. (2006) Interpreting flow cytometry data. Nat. Immunol., 7(7):681-685.

(28) 5.) Kverneland A H, et al. (2016) Age and gender leucocytes variances and references values generated using the standardized ONE-Invention protocol. Cytometry A. 89(6):543-64.

(29) 6.) Maecker H T, et al. (2012) Standardizing immunophenotyping for the Human Immunology Project. Nat Rev Immunol. 12(3):191-200.

(30) 7.) Maecker H T, McCoy J P Jr; FOCIS (2010) Human Immunophenotyping Consortium, Amos M, et al., A model for harmonizing flow cytometry in clinical trials. Nat Immunol. 11(11):975-8.

(31) 8.) WHO (2016). Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection. Recommendations for a public health approach—Second edition.

(32) 9.) European Aids Clinical Society (2015). European Guidelines for treatment of HIV-positive adults in Europe (Version 8.0; June 2016).

(33) 10.) Slatter M A, Cant A J (2011) Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for primary immunodeficiency diseases. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1238:122-31

(34) 11.) Thoma M D, et al. (2012) Peripheral blood lymphocyte and monocyte recovery and survival in acute leukemia postmyelo ablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 18(4):600-7.

(35) 12.) Nina Shah N, et al. (2015) Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma: Guidelines from the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 21:1155-66.

(36) 13.) Auletta J J and Lazarus H M (2005) Immune restoration following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: an evolving target. Bone Marrow Transplantation. 35:835-857.

(37) 14.) Wieczorek G, et al., (2009) Quantitative DNA methylation analysis of FOXP3 as a new method for counting regulatory T cells in peripheral blood and solid tissue. Cancer Res. 69:599-608.

(38) 15.) Sehouli J, et al. (2011) Epigenetic quantification of tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocytes. Epigenetics 6:236-46.

(39) 16.) Baron U, et al., (2007) DNA demethylation in the human FOXP3 locus discriminates regulatory T cells from activated FOXP3(+) conventional T cells. Eur J Immunol. 37:2378-2389.

(40) 17.) Lee J W, et al., (2006) Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement. Pharm Res. 23(2):312-28. 15.

(41) 18.) Lewin J, et al. (2004) Quantitative DNA methylation analysis based on four dye trace data from direct sequencing of PCR amplificates. Bioinformatics 20:3005-12.

(42) 19.) Mary L. McHugh (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb); 22(3):276-282.

(43) 20.) Warnecke P M, Stirzaker C (1997) Detection and measurement of PCR bias in quantitative methylation analysis of bisulphite-treated DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 25(21):4422-6.

(44) 21.) de Jonge H J M, et al., (2007) Evidence based selection of housekeeping genes. PLoS One. 2(9):e898

(45) 22.) Chen D, et al., (1999) Differential reactivity of the rat S100A4(p9Ka) gene to sodium bisulfite is associated with differential levels of the S100A4 (p9Ka) mRNA in rat mammary epithelial cells. J Biol Chem. 274(4):2483-91.

(46) 23.) Harrison J, Stirzaker C, Clark S J (1998) Cytosines adjacent to methylated CpG sites can be partially resistant to conversion in genomic bisulfite sequencing leading to methylation artifacts. Anal Biochem. 264(1):129-32

(47) 24.) International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2001) Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409: 860-921

(48) 25.) Moore, D M, et al. (2006) CD4 percentage is an independent predictor of survival in patients starting antiretroviral therapy with absolute CD4 cell counts between 200 and 350 cells/microL. HIV Med 7:383-388.

(49) 26.) Yu L M, Easterbrook P J, Marshall T (1997) Relationship between CD4 count and CD4% in HIV-infected people. Int J Epidemiol. 26(6):1367-72.

(50) 27.) Read S J (2001) Recovery efficiencies of nucleic acid extraction kits as measured by quantitative LightCycler™ PCR. Mol Pathol. 54(2): 86-90.

(51) 28.) Giavarina D. (2015) Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochemia Medica. 25(2):141-51.

(52) 29.) Rodriguez W R, Christodoulides N, Floriano P N, Graham S, Mohanty S, Dixon M, Hsiang M, Peter T, Zavahir S, Thior I, Romanovicz D, Bernard B, Goodey A P, Walker B D, McDevitt J T (2005) A microchip CD4 counting method for HIV monitoring in resource-poor settings. PLoS Med 2(7): e182-e182.

(53) 30.) Israeli M, Klein T, Herscovici C, Ram R, Shpilberg O, Sredni B and Yeshurun M. (2013) Cellular immune function monitoring after allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation: evaluation of a new assay. Clin Exp Immunol. 172(3): 475-482.

(54) 31.) Tsikas D (2009) A proposal for comparing methods of quantitative analysis of endogenous compounds in biological systems by using the relative lower limit of quantification (rLLOQ). J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 877(23):2244-51.

(55) 32.) Boldt A, Borte S, Fricke S, Kentouche K, Emmrich F, Borte M, Kahlenberg F, Sack U (2014) Eight-color immunophenotyping of T-, B-, and NK-cell subpopulations for characterization of chronic immunodeficiencies, Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 86(3):191-206.