4.4 Article

Validation and comparison of luminex multiplex cytokine analysis kits with ELISA: Determinations of a panel of nine cytokines in clinical sample culture supernatants

期刊

JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 66, 期 2, 页码 175-191

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jri.2005.03.005

关键词

reproductive immunology; clinical study; cytokine; ELISA; luminex; multiplex analysis

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA062203] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [R29 HD033506, R01 HD041696] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Problem: Analyses of the expression pattern of multiple cytokines are frequently required for characterization of the status of the immune system as it pertains to Th type bias and intrinsic levels of inflammation. Classically, analysis of cytokine expression patterns has been performed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for each separate analyte. A new technology, Luminex MAP(R), facilitates the simultaneous evaluation of multiple immune mediators with advantages of higher throughput, smaller sample volume, and lower cost. Validation of this technology has been limited to small sample sets, limited use of clinical study specimens, and use of non-commercial reagents. Methods: Ninety-six specimens from women over the course of their respective pregnancies were evaluated for cytokine concentrations using commercially available ELISA kits and commercially available Luminex MAP(R) kits according to the manufacturers' directions. Correlations between data sets were evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). Results: Excellent correlations were demonstrated for IL-1 beta, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IFN gamma, and TNF alpha, in contrast to IL-12 p70 and IL-13. Conclusions: Luminex multiplex technology has distinct advantages and is a valid alternative method to ELISA for the evaluation of the majority of cytokines tested and for the characterization of immune system status. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.4
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