4.5 Article

Epidemiological marker for oxidant status:: Comparison of the ELISA and the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry assay for urine 2,3 dinor-5,6-dihydro-15,F2t-isoprostane

Journal

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 10, Pages 793-797

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2004.03.003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA7783, CA57707-07] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK48831] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 15431] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: A biomarker of oxidant status applicable to epidemiological research is essential to studying the relationship between free radicals and chronic disease risk. Gas chromatography with mass-spectrometry detection (GC/MS) is the gold standard for measurement of urinary F-2-isoprostanes (F-2-isoPs), a noninvasive marker of oxidant status. However, this method is laborious and costly, which prohibits its use in large epidemiological studies. METHODS: We compared GC/MS assay with an inexpensive quick enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) in measurements of 2,3-dinor-5,6-dihydro-15-F-2t-isoprostane (F-2-isoPM), an abundant beta-oxidation metabolite of 8-iso-prostaglandin-F-2alpha. We measured F-2-isoPM in urine of 52 participants of the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study by both methods. RESULTS: The ELISA measurements showed approximately 30-fold greater mean and median (22.10, SD 12.92, and 18-49 ng/mg creatinine) than the GC/MS measurements (0.703, SD 0.468, and 0.597 ng/mg creatinine). We found low linear correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.70) and weak agreement in ranking subjects by tertiles (weighted Kappa statistic 0.34) between a GC/MS and ELISA. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the current ELISA method is not a valid substitute for the GS/MS assay. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available