Towards routine high-throughput analysis of fecal bile acids: validation of an enzymatic cycling method for the quantification of total bile acids in human stool samples on fully automated clinical chemistry analyzers.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1515/cclm-2024-1414
Angelique Masetto, Tina Leber, Tobias Frömel, Christoph Peter, Kai Prager, Matthias Grimmler
{"title":"Towards routine high-throughput analysis of fecal bile acids: validation of an enzymatic cycling method for the quantification of total bile acids in human stool samples on fully automated clinical chemistry analyzers.","authors":"Angelique Masetto, Tina Leber, Tobias Frömel, Christoph Peter, Kai Prager, Matthias Grimmler","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2024-1414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Bile acid diarrhea is a common but underdiagnosed condition. Because the gold standard test (<sup>75</sup>SeHCAT) is time-consuming and not widely available, fecal bile acid excretion is typically assessed by chromatography and mass spectrometry. Although enzymatic cycling assays are well established for the rapid and cost-effective analysis of total bile acids (TBA) in serum or plasma, their full potential has yet not been extended to stool samples in clinical routine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The performance of the 'Total bile acids 21 FS' reagent (DiaSys) was evaluated in fecal matrix according to CLSI guidelines and EU-IVD Regulations (2017/745), and compared to an established microplate-based kit (IDK<sup>®</sup>) by measuring patient stool samples (n=122). Method agreement was assessed by Passing-Bablok and Bland-Altman analysis. The quantification of eight individual BAs was assessed using HPLC-MS/MS as reference method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The DiaSys assay showed linearity between 3.5 and 130 μmol/L, good repeatability, total precision, and reproducibility with CVs of 1.7 %, 3.5 %, and 3.0 %. Limit of blank (LoB), detection (LoD), and quantitation (LoQ) were ≤0.17, ≤0.3, and 3.5 μmol/L, respectively. No significant interference from endogenous substances was observed. The methods showed good correlation up to 140 μmol/L (r=0.988), despite differences in the quantification of individual BAs, with mean deviations of 7 % (DiaSys) and 31 % (IDK<sup>®</sup>), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The advantages of enzymatic TBA analysis on fully automated clinical chemistry platforms can be exploited for the routine analysis of stool samples. However, cycling assays may benefit from reference standards that take into account the composition of the fecal BA pool.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-1414","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Bile acid diarrhea is a common but underdiagnosed condition. Because the gold standard test (75SeHCAT) is time-consuming and not widely available, fecal bile acid excretion is typically assessed by chromatography and mass spectrometry. Although enzymatic cycling assays are well established for the rapid and cost-effective analysis of total bile acids (TBA) in serum or plasma, their full potential has yet not been extended to stool samples in clinical routine.

Methods: The performance of the 'Total bile acids 21 FS' reagent (DiaSys) was evaluated in fecal matrix according to CLSI guidelines and EU-IVD Regulations (2017/745), and compared to an established microplate-based kit (IDK®) by measuring patient stool samples (n=122). Method agreement was assessed by Passing-Bablok and Bland-Altman analysis. The quantification of eight individual BAs was assessed using HPLC-MS/MS as reference method.

Results: The DiaSys assay showed linearity between 3.5 and 130 μmol/L, good repeatability, total precision, and reproducibility with CVs of 1.7 %, 3.5 %, and 3.0 %. Limit of blank (LoB), detection (LoD), and quantitation (LoQ) were ≤0.17, ≤0.3, and 3.5 μmol/L, respectively. No significant interference from endogenous substances was observed. The methods showed good correlation up to 140 μmol/L (r=0.988), despite differences in the quantification of individual BAs, with mean deviations of 7 % (DiaSys) and 31 % (IDK®), respectively.

Conclusions: The advantages of enzymatic TBA analysis on fully automated clinical chemistry platforms can be exploited for the routine analysis of stool samples. However, cycling assays may benefit from reference standards that take into account the composition of the fecal BA pool.

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
迈向粪便胆汁酸的常规高通量分析:在全自动临床化学分析仪上对人类粪便样品中总胆汁酸定量的酶循环方法的验证。
目的:胆汁酸性腹泻是一种常见但诊断不足的疾病。由于金标准测试(75SeHCAT)耗时且不广泛使用,粪便胆汁酸排泄通常通过色谱和质谱法进行评估。尽管酶循环测定法已被广泛应用于血清或血浆中总胆汁酸(TBA)的快速和经济分析,但其全部潜力尚未扩展到临床常规粪便样本。方法:根据CLSI指南和EU-IVD法规(2017/745)评估“总胆汁酸21fs”试剂(DiaSys)在粪便基质中的性能,并通过测量患者粪便样本(n=122)与已建立的基于微孔板的试剂盒(IDK®)进行比较。采用Passing-Bablok和Bland-Altman分析评价方法一致性。采用HPLC-MS/MS作为参比方法,对8种BAs进行定量分析。结果:DiaSys法在3.5 ~ 130 μmol/L范围内线性良好,重复性好,总精密度高,重复性好,CVs分别为1.7 %、3.5 %和3.0 %。空白限(LoB)≤0.17,检出限(LoD)≤0.3,定量限(LoQ) 3.5 μmol/L。未观察到内源性物质的明显干扰。两种方法的相关性均为140 μmol/L (r=0.988),尽管单个BAs的定量存在差异,平均偏差分别为7 % (DiaSys)和31 % (IDK®)。结论:全自动临床化学平台上酶促TBA分析的优势可用于粪便样本的常规分析。然而,循环分析可能受益于考虑到粪便BA池组成的参考标准。
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
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
16.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically. CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France). Topics: - clinical biochemistry - clinical genomics and molecular biology - clinical haematology and coagulation - clinical immunology and autoimmunity - clinical microbiology - drug monitoring and analysis - evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers - disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes) - new reagents, instrumentation and technologies - new methodologies - reference materials and methods - reference values and decision limits - quality and safety in laboratory medicine - translational laboratory medicine - clinical metrology Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!
期刊最新文献
Reviewer Acknowledgment. Analytical and clinical evaluations of Snibe Maglumi® S100B assay. An isotope dilution-liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based candidate reference measurement procedure for the quantification of cortisol in human serum and plasma. Diagnostic performance of Mindray CL1200i high sensitivity cardiac troponin I assay compared to Abbott Alinity cardiac troponin I assay for the diagnosis of type 1 and 2 acute myocardial infarction in females and males: MERITnI study. Advancements and challenges in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays: diagnostic, pathophysiological, and clinical perspectives.
×
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