4.5 Article

Development of an indirect method for measuring porcine pancreatic lipase in human duodenal fluid

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 383, 期 2, 页码 289-295

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2008.08.036

关键词

Enzyme replacement therapy; Lipase; Lipase assay; ELISA; Pancreatic insufficiency

资金

  1. Phase II clinical study
  2. Solvay Pharmaceuticals GmbH (Hanover, Germany)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency are usually treated with porcine pancreatic enzymes but the bioavailability of these enzymes in the gut remains a matter of discussion. In order to determine the duodenal availability of porcine pancreatic lipase (PPL) present in pancreatic extracts (PE) taken orally, we developed a method for quantifying PPL in samples containing both PPL and human pancreatic lipase (HPL). Total pancreatic lipase activity measurements using the pH-stat technique and tributyrin as substrate were Combined with an HPL-specific ELISA. Based on the known specific activity of the purified HPL, its activity was deduced from the ELISA measurements, and the PPL activity was obtained by subtracting the HPL activity from the total pancreatic lipase activity. This assay was established and validated using various samples containing pure PPL and recombinant HPL or PE, mixed or not with human duodenal juice. Samples collected in vivo from patients treated with PE were also tested. it was found that PPL did not affect the HPL ELISA, and the indirect PPL assay gave a measurement accuracy of 6.6% with the samples containing pure PPL and 10% with those containing PE. This assay was also used successfully to discriminate between PPL and the endogenous HPL present in the duodenal contents of patients with severe pancreatic insufficiency treated with PE. This method might provide a useful means of assessing the availability of PEs at their site of action, in the absence of a PPL-specific ELISA. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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