MARATTO

article · Journal of Molecular Diagnostics

Epigenetic CD4+ T-Cell Quantification from Dried Blood Spots Using a Real-Time Quantitative PCR–Based Assay

Abstract

Despite the clinical importance of CD4 testing for identifying advanced HIV disease, access to conventional flow cytometry remains limited in many settings. Epigenetic quantitative PCR (qPCR)–based immune cell quantification represents a molecular alternative that may be compatible with simplified sample types such as dried blood spots (DBS). This study evaluated the analytical performance of an epigenetic CD4+ T-cell qPCR assay (Epimune diagnostics) using DBS samples. Residual EDTA whole blood specimens (n = 150) from HIV patients were applied to Whatman 903 DBS cards and tested following manual DNA extraction and qPCR using the iMune CD4 assay. CD4 counts derived from DBS were compared with reference flow cytometry using the AQUIOS PanLeucogating platform. Agreement was assessed using concordance correlation, Bland–Altman analysis, and percentage similarity. Assay repeatability, batch-related variability, and classification performance at clinically relevant CD4 thresholds were also evaluated. DBS-based epigenetic CD4 quantification demonstrated good agreement with flow cytometry (concordance correlation coefficient 0.91; 95% CI: 0.88–0.93) with a mean bias of −28 cells/μL (−6.9%). Repeatability was acceptable across the measurement range (coefficient of variation 4.0%–11.2%). At a threshold of 200 cells/μL, sensitivity and specificity were 93.8% and 88.9%, respectively. Increased variability was observed in larger manual extraction batches. These findings demonstrate the technical feasibility of epigenetic qPCR-based CD4 quantification from DBS and support further optimisation and validation

Research topics

  • Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Biosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
  • Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2026.05.010

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.