4.1 Article

Human apolipoprotein CIII levels; evaluation of three assay methods

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00365513.2020.1725976

关键词

Apolipoprotein CIII; nephelometry; ELISA; triglycerides; human; healthy

资金

  1. Swedish Diabetes Association
  2. Funds of Karolinska Institutet
  3. Swedish Research Council
  4. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  5. Family Erling-Persson Foundation
  6. Strategic Research Program in Diabetes at Karolinska Institutet
  7. Stichting af Jochnick Foundation
  8. Bert von Kantzow Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Apolipoprotein CIII (apoCIII) is associated with triglyceride (TG)-rich particles like VLDL and exerts an inhibitory effect of lipoprotein lipase. Increased levels are related to cardiovascular diseases and diabetes and therefore apoCIII has been proposed as a useful biomarker. Even if several commercial assays for measuring apoCIII in human plasma/serum are available, data is scarce concerning their reliability and none is used clinically. In the present study a comparative investigation has been done. Two ELISA-based methods (Cusabio Biotech and Assay Pro) and one nephelometric assay (Siemens Healthcare) were investigated. Serum and plasma samples were obtained from healthy volunteers and from samples sent to the Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry, preferably with higher levels of TGs. The Cusabio Biotech assay did not yield any valid results. However, both the methods from Assay Pro and Siemens Healthcare showed good performance with similar dynamic ranges. The latter assay had lower CV and required less work. In healthy individuals, apoCIII levels were not affected by fasting, freezing or thawing, nor did we find any gender differences. Individuals with elevated levels of TG displayed higher apoCIII values. Females with oral intake of contraceptives had higher levels. In conclusion, the nephelometric assay showed the best performance with the lowest CV, was less labor intensive than an assay based on ELISA and could therefore be suitable for clinical use.

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

4.1
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