4.5 Article

Measurement of Urinary Cystatin C with a Particle-Enhanced Turbidimetric Immunoassay on Architect Ci8200

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 358-364

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.21531

关键词

avian antibodies; cystatin C; method validation; particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay; urine

资金

  1. Uppsala Hospital Research Fund
  2. Norwegian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Cystatin C is a low-molecular-weight protein that is freely filtered by the glomerulus and catabolized after reabsorption by the proximal tubular cells in healthy subjects. Urinary cystatin C is a potential biomarker for tubular damage including acute kidney injury (AKI) in the acute phase when patients are submitted to the intensive care unit. Methods The aim of this study was to perform a method validation of urinary analysis of cystatin C by particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (PETIA) on a high-throughput chemical analyzer. Total assay time was 10 min. The antigen excess, linearity, lower limit of quantification (LoQ), recovery, assay precision, stability, and interference caused by hemoglobin were evaluated. Results The LoQ was calculated to 0.020 mg/l with a coefficient of variation (CV) = 10%. No hook effect was observed and the assay was linear over the studied interval less than 0.0200.950 mg/l with a regression of R2 = 0.9994. The assay had a recovery between 93100% and the assay precision had a total CV of less than 3.5%. Cystatin C was stable for 3 days in room temperature and 14 days in +4C. The assay did not show any major interference with hemoglobin at a hemoglobin concentration of 10 g/L. The reference interval for urine cystatin C was less than 0.166 mg/l. Conclusion The urinary cystatin C PETIA showed good precision and performance characteristics including short test turnaround times that are necessary qualifications for a biomarker at a routine laboratory. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 26:358-364, 2012. (c)proves 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据