4.1 Article

Use of a time-resolved immunofluorometric assay for determination of canine C-reactive protein concentrations in whole blood

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 62-66

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.62

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To develop and validate a time-resolved immunofluorometric assay (TR-IFMA) for measurement of C-reactive protein (CRP) in canine whole blood. Animals-12 healthy dogs and 35 dogs with inflammatory processes. Procedure-CRP was isolated from acute-phase serum by affinity chromatography and used as a standard for calibration. Analytic and functional limit of detection and intra-assay and interassay precision were calculated. Accuracy was evaluated by recovery assays and by comparison with results of a commercial ELISA. Correlation between CRP concentrations in whole blood and corresponding plasma fractions was tested by use of TR-IFMA. Stability of blood samples at 4 degrees C was assessed during a 1-month period, and effects of anticoagulants were evaluated. Measurements of CRP in blood samples from 12 healthy dogs were compared with those of 35 dogs with inflammatory diseases. Results-Analytic and functional limits of detection were 0.53 and 3.26 mu g/mL, respectively. Intra-assay and interassay coefficients of variation varied between 2.1% to 8.9% and 8.0% to 12.3%, respectively. Mean recoveries of added CRP were 104% and 114%. Measurements of CRP by use of TR-IFMA and ELISA were highly correlated (R-2 = 0.97). Measurements of CRP in whole blood and in corresponding plasma fractions by use of TR-IFMA were also highly correlated (R2 = 0.97). Neither storage nor use of anticoagulants disturbed measurement of CRIP concentrations in whole blood. Concentrations of CRIP in whole blood of dogs with inflammation were significantly higher than in healthy dogs. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Determination of CRP concentrations in whole blood may provide a diagnostic test for inflammation in dogs.

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