4.7 Article

Determination of urinary myo-inositol concentration by an improved enzymatic cycling method using myo-inositol dehydrogenase from Flavobacterium sp.

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 328, Issue 1-2, Pages 163-171

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0009-8981(02)00426-6

Keywords

myo-inositol; myo-inositol dehydrogenase; enzymatic cycling method

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To determine myo-inositol more accurately, we improved the enzymatic cycling method. Methods: We screened myo-inositol dehydrogenase (MIDH; EC.1.1.1.18) from Flavobacterium sp., which was highly specific to myo-inositol. We measured urinary myo-inositol/creatinine ratio 2 h after 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (2 h MI) of 71 volunteers, and investigated the relationship between diabetes and urinary myo-inositol concentration. Results: The calibration curve was linear (r = 1.00) up to 2000 mumol/l, and the detection limit was 10 mumol/l. Within-run and between-run CVs were 0.5-1.1% and 0.4-1.3%, respectively. The 2 h MI of impaired fasting glycemia (IFG; 65.1 +/- 46.6 mg/g Cr, P < 0.005), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT; 85.0 +/- 73.7 mg/g Cr, P < 0.001) and diabetes (163.4 +/- 73.7 mg/g Cr, P < 0.0001) increased significantly compared with that of normal glucose tolerance (NGT; 24.0 +/- 14.4 mg/g Cr). From receiver operating characteristic analyses on 2 h MI, with 50 mg/g Cr as a tentative cutoff value to detect diabetes, the sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 77%, respectively. With 40 mg/g Cr as a tentative cutoff value to detect NGT, the sensitivity and specificity were 74% and 85%, respectively. Conclusions: The myo-inositol measurement method demonstrated high specificity and yielded accurate results. The results of clinical trials suggested that 2 h Ml could not only determine diabetes but also distinguish IFG and IGT from NGT. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available