无抗体 LC-MS/MS 测量 C 肽和胰岛素的实验室间比较

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Clinical chemistry Pub Date : 2024-06-03 DOI:10.1093/clinchem/hvae034
Annie Moradian, Elisha Goonatilleke, Tai-Tu Lin, Maya Hatten-Beck, Michelle Emrick, Athena A Schepmoes, Thomas L Fillmore, Michael J MacCoss, Salvatore Sechi, Kimia Sobhani, Randie Little, Kuanysh Kabytaev, Jennifer E van Eyk, Wei-Jun Qian, Andrew N Hoofnagle
{"title":"无抗体 LC-MS/MS 测量 C 肽和胰岛素的实验室间比较","authors":"Annie Moradian, Elisha Goonatilleke, Tai-Tu Lin, Maya Hatten-Beck, Michelle Emrick, Athena A Schepmoes, Thomas L Fillmore, Michael J MacCoss, Salvatore Sechi, Kimia Sobhani, Randie Little, Kuanysh Kabytaev, Jennifer E van Eyk, Wei-Jun Qian, Andrew N Hoofnagle","doi":"10.1093/clinchem/hvae034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The enhanced precision and selectivity of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) makes it an attractive alternative to certain clinical immunoassays. Easily transferrable work flows could help facilitate harmonization and ensure high-quality patient care. We aimed to evaluate the interlaboratory comparability of antibody-free multiplexed insulin and C-peptide LC-MS/MS measurements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The laboratories that comprise the Targeted Mass Spectrometry Assays for Diabetes and Obesity Research (TaMADOR) consortium verified the performance of a validated peptide-based assay (reproducibility, linearity, and lower limit of the measuring interval [LLMI]). An interlaboratory comparison study was then performed using shared calibrators, de-identified leftover laboratory samples, and reference materials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During verification, the measurements were precise (2.7% to 3.7%CV), linear (4 to 15 ng/mL for C-peptide and 2 to 14 ng/mL for insulin), and sensitive (LLMI of 0.04 to 0.10 ng/mL for C-peptide and 0.03 ng/mL for insulin). Median imprecision across the 3 laboratories was 13.4% (inter-quartile range [IQR] 11.6%) for C-peptide and 22.2% (IQR 20.9%) for insulin using individual measurements, and 10.8% (IQR 8.7%) and 15.3% (IQR 14.9%) for C-peptide and insulin, respectively, when replicate measurements were averaged. Method comparison with the University of Missouri reference method for C-peptide demonstrated a robust linear correlation with a slope of 1.044 and r2 = 0.99.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results suggest that combined LC-MS/MS measurements of C-peptide and insulin are robust and adaptable and that standardization with a reference measurement procedure could allow accurate and precise measurements across sites, which could be important to diabetes research and help patient care in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":10690,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interlaboratory Comparison of Antibody-Free LC-MS/MS Measurements of C-peptide and Insulin.\",\"authors\":\"Annie Moradian, Elisha Goonatilleke, Tai-Tu Lin, Maya Hatten-Beck, Michelle Emrick, Athena A Schepmoes, Thomas L Fillmore, Michael J MacCoss, Salvatore Sechi, Kimia Sobhani, Randie Little, Kuanysh Kabytaev, Jennifer E van Eyk, Wei-Jun Qian, Andrew N Hoofnagle\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/clinchem/hvae034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The enhanced precision and selectivity of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) makes it an attractive alternative to certain clinical immunoassays. Easily transferrable work flows could help facilitate harmonization and ensure high-quality patient care. We aimed to evaluate the interlaboratory comparability of antibody-free multiplexed insulin and C-peptide LC-MS/MS measurements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The laboratories that comprise the Targeted Mass Spectrometry Assays for Diabetes and Obesity Research (TaMADOR) consortium verified the performance of a validated peptide-based assay (reproducibility, linearity, and lower limit of the measuring interval [LLMI]). An interlaboratory comparison study was then performed using shared calibrators, de-identified leftover laboratory samples, and reference materials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During verification, the measurements were precise (2.7% to 3.7%CV), linear (4 to 15 ng/mL for C-peptide and 2 to 14 ng/mL for insulin), and sensitive (LLMI of 0.04 to 0.10 ng/mL for C-peptide and 0.03 ng/mL for insulin). Median imprecision across the 3 laboratories was 13.4% (inter-quartile range [IQR] 11.6%) for C-peptide and 22.2% (IQR 20.9%) for insulin using individual measurements, and 10.8% (IQR 8.7%) and 15.3% (IQR 14.9%) for C-peptide and insulin, respectively, when replicate measurements were averaged. Method comparison with the University of Missouri reference method for C-peptide demonstrated a robust linear correlation with a slope of 1.044 and r2 = 0.99.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results suggest that combined LC-MS/MS measurements of C-peptide and insulin are robust and adaptable and that standardization with a reference measurement procedure could allow accurate and precise measurements across sites, which could be important to diabetes research and help patient care in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical chemistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvae034\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvae034","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

摘要

背景:液相色谱-串联质谱法(LC-MS/MS)具有更高的精确度和选择性,因此成为某些临床免疫测定的理想替代方法。易于转移的工作流程有助于促进协调和确保高质量的患者护理。我们旨在评估无抗体多重胰岛素和 C 肽 LC-MS/MS 测量的实验室间可比性:糖尿病和肥胖症研究目标质谱分析法(TaMADOR)联盟的实验室验证了基于肽的有效分析法的性能(重现性、线性度和测量间隔下限 [LLMI])。然后使用共享校准物、去标识的实验室剩余样本和参考材料进行了实验室间比较研究:在验证过程中,测量结果精确(2.7% 至 3.7%CV)、线性(C 肽为 4 至 15 纳克/毫升,胰岛素为 2 至 14 纳克/毫升)、灵敏(C 肽的 LLMI 为 0.04 至 0.10 纳克/毫升,胰岛素为 0.03 纳克/毫升)。使用单个测量值时,3 个实验室的中位不精确度分别为:C 肽 13.4%(四分位数间距 [IQR] 11.6%)和胰岛素 22.2%(IQR 20.9%);重复测量值取平均值时,C 肽和胰岛素的中位不精确度分别为 10.8%(IQR 8.7%)和 15.3%(IQR 14.9%)。C 肽的测定方法与密苏里大学的参考方法进行了比较,结果表明两者之间存在稳健的线性相关关系,斜率为 1.044,r2 = 0.99:我们的研究结果表明,LC-MS/MS 联合测量 C 肽和胰岛素的方法既稳健又适应性强,参照测量程序的标准化可实现不同地点的精确测量,这对糖尿病研究很重要,有助于未来的患者护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Interlaboratory Comparison of Antibody-Free LC-MS/MS Measurements of C-peptide and Insulin.

Background: The enhanced precision and selectivity of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) makes it an attractive alternative to certain clinical immunoassays. Easily transferrable work flows could help facilitate harmonization and ensure high-quality patient care. We aimed to evaluate the interlaboratory comparability of antibody-free multiplexed insulin and C-peptide LC-MS/MS measurements.

Methods: The laboratories that comprise the Targeted Mass Spectrometry Assays for Diabetes and Obesity Research (TaMADOR) consortium verified the performance of a validated peptide-based assay (reproducibility, linearity, and lower limit of the measuring interval [LLMI]). An interlaboratory comparison study was then performed using shared calibrators, de-identified leftover laboratory samples, and reference materials.

Results: During verification, the measurements were precise (2.7% to 3.7%CV), linear (4 to 15 ng/mL for C-peptide and 2 to 14 ng/mL for insulin), and sensitive (LLMI of 0.04 to 0.10 ng/mL for C-peptide and 0.03 ng/mL for insulin). Median imprecision across the 3 laboratories was 13.4% (inter-quartile range [IQR] 11.6%) for C-peptide and 22.2% (IQR 20.9%) for insulin using individual measurements, and 10.8% (IQR 8.7%) and 15.3% (IQR 14.9%) for C-peptide and insulin, respectively, when replicate measurements were averaged. Method comparison with the University of Missouri reference method for C-peptide demonstrated a robust linear correlation with a slope of 1.044 and r2 = 0.99.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that combined LC-MS/MS measurements of C-peptide and insulin are robust and adaptable and that standardization with a reference measurement procedure could allow accurate and precise measurements across sites, which could be important to diabetes research and help patient care in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry
Clinical chemistry 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
212
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is the premier publication for the science and practice of clinical laboratory medicine. It was established in 1955 and is associated with the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM). The journal focuses on laboratory diagnosis and management of patients, and has expanded to include other clinical laboratory disciplines such as genomics, hematology, microbiology, and toxicology. It also publishes articles relevant to clinical specialties including cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, immunology, infectious diseases, maternal-fetal medicine, neurology, nutrition, oncology, and pediatrics. In addition to original research, editorials, and reviews, Clinical Chemistry features recurring sections such as clinical case studies, perspectives, podcasts, and Q&A articles. It has the highest impact factor among journals of clinical chemistry, laboratory medicine, pathology, analytical chemistry, transfusion medicine, and clinical microbiology. The journal is indexed in databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Decision-Making Suffers from Inequivalent Measurement Results and Inadequate Reference Intervals Full-Length Immune Repertoire Reconstruction and Profiling at the Transcriptome Level Using Long-Read Sequencing Validating, Implementing, and Monitoring Machine Learning Solutions in the Clinical Laboratory Safely and Effectively. Critical Results in Laboratory Medicine. Vitamin D: Analytical Advances, Clinical Impact, and Ongoing Debates on Health 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