Comparison of a Fully Automated Platform and an Established ELISA for the Quantification of Neurofilament Light Chain in Patients With Cognitive Decline.

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1093/jalm/jfae099
Luisa Agnello, Caterina Maria Gambino, Fabio Del Ben, Anna Maria Ciaccio, Concetta Scazzone, Bruna Lo Sasso, Marcello Ciaccio
{"title":"Comparison of a Fully Automated Platform and an Established ELISA for the Quantification of Neurofilament Light Chain in Patients With Cognitive Decline.","authors":"Luisa Agnello, Caterina Maria Gambino, Fabio Del Ben, Anna Maria Ciaccio, Concetta Scazzone, Bruna Lo Sasso, Marcello Ciaccio","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the most-used method for neurofilament light chain (NfL) quantification in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Recently, fully automated immunoassays for NfL measurement in CSF and blood have allowed high reproducibility among laboratories, making NfLs suitable for routine use in clinical practice. In this study, we compared the Uman Diagnostics NF-light ELISA with the fully automated platform Lumipulse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 60 patients with cognitive decline, including Alzheimer disease (AD). CSF NfL levels were measured by a NF-light ELISA kit (UmanDiagnostics), and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) on the Lumipulse G1200 platform (Fujirebio Diagnostics). Serum NfLs levels were measured by CLEIA on the Lumipulse G1200.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found a significant, very strong correlation [Spearman rho = 0.94 (0.90-0.96)] between CLEIA and ELISA in CSF, and a significant moderate correlation between CSF and serum with both analytical methods [CLEIA vs serum CLEIA 0.41 (0.16-0.61); ELISA vs serum CLEIA 0.40 (0.15-0.60)]. It is worth noting that CSF CLEIA measurements were approximately 136.12 times higher than the serum measurements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings show a robust correlation between ELISA Uman Diagnostic and the standardized Lumipulse G1200 platform for CSF NfL measurements.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the most-used method for neurofilament light chain (NfL) quantification in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Recently, fully automated immunoassays for NfL measurement in CSF and blood have allowed high reproducibility among laboratories, making NfLs suitable for routine use in clinical practice. In this study, we compared the Uman Diagnostics NF-light ELISA with the fully automated platform Lumipulse.

Methods: We enrolled 60 patients with cognitive decline, including Alzheimer disease (AD). CSF NfL levels were measured by a NF-light ELISA kit (UmanDiagnostics), and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) on the Lumipulse G1200 platform (Fujirebio Diagnostics). Serum NfLs levels were measured by CLEIA on the Lumipulse G1200.

Results: We found a significant, very strong correlation [Spearman rho = 0.94 (0.90-0.96)] between CLEIA and ELISA in CSF, and a significant moderate correlation between CSF and serum with both analytical methods [CLEIA vs serum CLEIA 0.41 (0.16-0.61); ELISA vs serum CLEIA 0.40 (0.15-0.60)]. It is worth noting that CSF CLEIA measurements were approximately 136.12 times higher than the serum measurements.

Conclusions: Our findings show a robust correlation between ELISA Uman Diagnostic and the standardized Lumipulse G1200 platform for CSF NfL measurements.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较全自动平台和成熟的酶联免疫吸附法定量检测认知功能减退患者的神经丝蛋白轻链
背景:酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)是脑脊液(CSF)中神经丝轻链(NfL)定量的最常用方法。最近,用于脑脊液和血液中神经丝蛋白轻链测定的全自动免疫测定法使实验室之间具有了很高的可重复性,从而使神经丝蛋白轻链测定适合在临床实践中常规使用。在这项研究中,我们比较了 Uman 诊断公司的 NF-light ELISA 和全自动平台 Lumipulse:方法:我们招募了 60 名认知能力下降的患者,包括阿尔茨海默病(AD)患者。采用NF-light ELISA试剂盒(UmanDiagnostics)和Lumipulse G1200平台(Fujirebio Diagnostics)上的化学发光酶免疫分析法(CLEIA)测量脑脊液NfL水平。结果:我们发现,CLEIA 和 ELISA 在 CSF 中的相关性非常强[Spearman rho = 0.94 (0.90-0.96)],而两种分析方法在 CSF 和血清中的相关性适中[CLEIA vs 血清 CLEIA 0.41 (0.16-0.61);ELISA vs 血清 CLEIA 0.40 (0.15-0.60)]。值得注意的是,CSF CLEIA 测量值是血清测量值的约 136.12 倍:我们的研究结果表明,ELISA Uman Diagnostic 和标准化的 Lumipulse G1200 平台在 CSF NfL 测量中具有很强的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
期刊最新文献
Unraveling Uncertainty: The Impact of Biological and Analytical Variation on the Prediction Uncertainty of Categorical Prediction Models. Fundamental Uncertainty: Interplatform Inconsistency of FDA-Cleared Serological Tests. Commentary on Myocarditis or Myositis? Rising, Declining, and Rising of Critical Cardiac Troponin T Levels in a Patient Post Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy. Myocarditis or Myositis? Rising, Declining, and Rising of Critical Cardiac Troponin T Levels in a Patient Post Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy. Point-of-Care Testing Biosafety Decisions: An Investigation Summary Illustrating Current Decision-Making Process in Ontario, Canada.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1