This October, we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Optimized Multicolor Immunofluorescence Panel (OMIP) publication format, a very successful manuscript type specifically designed for the flow cytometry and imaging communities. While the latter has not turned toward OMIPs, this publication type has more recently become adopted by the mass cytometry community.

Back when flow cytometers were able to merely interrogate a handful of markers concomitantly, coming up with a workable panel was easy enough. This started changing as the number of measurable, and thus the number of measured, parameters gradually increased. As instrument capabilities ramped up to 18 fluorescent parameters, researchers found themselves spending what seemed like an inordinate amount of time developing good panels that would allow them to satisfactorily discern all markers and cellular subsets targeted in their study. Successful panels were being shared between labs but resulting study data were often published without proper acknowledgement of the person(s) that generated the panels, as the panels were viewed as just another laboratory tool. Although a thoughtfully designed and thoroughly optimized panel lies at the heart of any immunophenotyping study, the time and effort involved in generating a reagent panel that yields trustworthy and reproducible results were rarely reflected in the way that study results were being reported. Oftentimes, technical aspects of immunophenotyping methodologies were only incompletely described, and panel performance as well as gate placements was not always illustrated in sample plots.

This and the fact that variations of a handful of panels (e.g., focusing on T‐cell functionality) were generated independently in different labs again and again sparked the idea of developing a platform where highly optimized immunofluorescence panels could be published, with a focus on the technical aspects, the optimization processes, and very importantly on what was tested but did not work or did not work as well. This would provide a way to acknowledge the efforts of panel developers but also catalogue invaluable information that is typically hard to obtain, namely the technical nitty gritty, which is ultimately what can save others a lot of time and money when developing their own panels, in addition to being able to use existing panels as a backbone for their own. From this the OMIPs were born (1).

Over the last 12 years or so, there has been a general drive in the flow cytometry community to make immunofluorescence assay reporting more transparent, with an ever‐increasing number of journals now encouraging or requiring adherence to MIFlowCyt (2) and making fcs files available through the FlowRepository (3). The OMIPs fit right in with these initiatives, representing so much more than just ready‐to‐use panels by providing detailed discussions of panel design rationale, carefully delineating gating trees, and thoroughly outlining how an optimal panel performance was established.

Two years after being established, OMIP submissions started coming in on a regular basis. Since then we have received a steady flow of OMIP candidate manuscripts, resulting in an average of seven protocols being published annually (Fig. 1). Since 2018, there has been a significant increase in OMIP publications. This is a testament to the continued relevance of such publications and underlines their increasing value with the advent of high‐parameter flow cytometry. The OMIPs' sustained interest is apparent in their download rate, which is 2–3 times higher compared to other publications in Cytometry Part A. Many OMIPs are also highly cited, the top three being OMIP‐044 (4), OMIP‐34 (5), and OMIP‐51 (6).

Over the years, the level of panel complexity has been steadily increasing, reflecting the development and adoption of new technologies, such as mass cytometry, new dyes excitable in ranges of the light spectrum that were hitherto unused, and new affordable excitation light sources. In this issue, you will find the seven most recent OMIPs, with OMIP‐069 being the first that is designed for full spectrum flow cytometry (this issue, pp. 1044). This panel interrogates 43 parameters by recording 40 fluorescent dyes, as well as three scatter signals, thus reaching the highest level of complexity within OMIPs to date.

As exciting as the race for panels with ever increasing numbers of parameters is, it needs to be emphasized that the OMIPs' goal is to disseminate highly optimized panels that have been designed to address specific scientific questions. The increasing complexity of panels published as OMIPs observed over the years is a natural development that follows the increasing capability of flow cytometers and fluorophore availability during that time. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that panels comprised of less than 10 colors, such as OMIP‐055 (7) can very well be eligible to become OMIPs if they appropriately address the stated biological question.

We would like to also draw your attention to the special section in this issue on Genomic Cytometry, kindly guest edited by Robert Salomon, David Gallego‐Ortega, and Christopher Hall. Combining OMIP‐based high‐content flow cytometry and cell sorting with downstream genomic single‐cell scrutinization will help to further our understanding of biological mechanisms, and the flow community has been rapidly adopting this new technology.

今年 10 月，我们庆祝优化多色免疫荧光面板 (OMIP) 出版格式 10 周年，这是一种非常成功的手稿类型，专为流式细胞术和成像社区设计。虽然后者尚未转向 OMIP，但这种出版物类型最近已被质谱流式细胞术社区采用。

回到流式细胞仪只能同时询问少数标志物的时候，想出一个可行的面板就很容易了。这开始随着可测量的数量以及测量的参数数量逐渐增加而发生变化。随着仪器功能增加到 18 个荧光参数，研究人员发现他们花费了似乎过多的时间来开发良好的面板，使他们能够令人满意地识别研究中针对的所有标记和细胞亚群。成功的面板在实验室之间共享，但最终的研究数据经常在没有正确确认生成面板的人的情况下发布，因为面板被视为只是另一种实验室工具。尽管精心设计和彻底优化的面板是任何免疫表型研究的核心，但生成可产生可靠和可重复结果的试剂面板所涉及的时间和精力很少反映在报告研究结果的方式中。通常，免疫表型方法的技术方面的描述并不完整，样本图中并不总是说明面板性能以及门的位置。

这一点以及在不同实验室中独立生成少数面板的变化（例如，专注于 T 细胞功能）的事实一次又一次激发了开发一个平台的想法，该平台可以发布高度优化的免疫荧光面板，重点是技术方面、优化过程，以及非常重要的经过测试但不起作用或效果不佳的内容。这将提供一种方式来承认面板开发人员的努力，但也可以对通常难以获得的宝贵信息进行分类，即技术细节，最终可以为其他人在开发自己的面板时节省大量时间和金钱，在除了能够使用现有面板作为自己的主干之外。由此诞生了 OMIP ( 1 )。

在过去 12 年左右的时间里，流式细胞术界普遍推动免疫荧光检测报告更加透明，越来越多的期刊现在鼓励或要求遵守 MIFlowCyt ( 2 ) 并提供 fcs 文件通过 FlowRepository ( 3 )。OMIP 非常适合这些举措，通过详细讨论面板设计原理、仔细描绘门控树并彻底概述如何建立最佳面板性能，代表的不仅仅是即用型面板。

成立两年后，OMIP 开始定期提交。从那时起，我们收到了源源不断的 OMIP 候选手稿，导致平均每年发布 7 个协议（图 1）。自 2018 年以来，OMIP 出版物显着增加。这证明了这些出版物的持续相关性，并强调了随着高参数流式细胞术的出现，它们的价值不断增加。OMIP 的持续兴趣体现在其下载率上，与Cytometry Part A 中的其他出版物相比，下载率高出 2-3 倍。许多 OMIP 也被高度引用，前三名是 OMIP-044（4）、OMIP-34（5）和 OMIP-51（6）。

多年来，面板的复杂程度一直在稳步增加，这反映了新技术的开发和采用，例如质谱流式细胞术、在迄今为止未使用的光谱范围内可激发的新染料以及新的负担得起的激发光源。在本期中，您将找到七个最新的 OMIP，其中 OMIP-069 是第一个专为全谱流式细胞术设计的（本期，第 1044 页）。该面板通过记录 40 种荧光染料以及三个散射信号来询问 43 个参数，从而达到迄今为止 OMIP 中最高的复杂度。

与参数数量不断增加的面板竞赛一样令人兴奋，需要强调的是，OMIP 的目标是传播专为解决特定科学问题而设计的高度优化的面板。多年来观察到的作为 OMIP 发布的面板越来越复杂，这是随着流式细胞仪的能力和荧光团可用性的增加而自然发展的。然而，重要的是要指出由少于 10 种颜色组成的面板，例如 OMIP-055 ( 7 )，如果它们适当地解决了所述的生物学问题，则很可能有资格成为 OMIP。

我们还想提请您注意本期关于基因组细胞术的特辑，由 Robert Salomon、David Gallego-Ortega 和 Christopher Hall 编辑的特邀嘉宾。将基于 OMIP 的高内涵流式细胞术和细胞分选与下游基因组单细胞审查相结合，将有助于我们进一步了解生物学机制，并且流动界一直在迅速采用这种新技术。