肾盂肾炎测定法与免疫比浊测定法:IgG亚类的分析性能。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS Journal of immunological methods Pub Date : 2024-07-10 DOI:10.1016/j.jim.2024.113725
{"title":"肾盂肾炎测定法与免疫比浊测定法:IgG亚类的分析性能。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jim.2024.113725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Interest in measuring immunoglobulin G Subclasses (IgG Subclasses) is increasing as more information is gathered and understanding regarding conditions associated with deficiencies of each IgG Subclass grows. Different methodologies are available for the measurement of IgG Subclasses, but their specificities vary. As a result, laboratories choose the methodology that better suits their routine, but which may not necessarily align with the needs of their population. In addition, the lack of standardization for the quantification of IgG Subclasses causes diagnostic gaps when comparing results provided by different methodologies. Thus, the purpose of our research is to compare the analytical performance of The Binding Site's (TBS) Optilite® human Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgG Subclasses Immunoturbidimetry assay, with the Nephelometry method routinely used in our clinical laboratory, Siemens BNII®. Our results show that the Immunoturbidimetry assay appears to be the most reliable to evaluate IgG Subclasses: the sum of IgG Subclasses and Total IgG correlate better than by Nephelometry. Although these methodologies share a similar principle, the comparison of results appears to be compromised. Therefore, prior to switching methodologies, further studies should be conducted to assess which methodology could be better applied to specific populations. It is also essential to standardise IgG Subclasses assays to reduce discrepancies that arise from comparing results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16000,"journal":{"name":"Journal of immunological methods","volume":"532 ","pages":"Article 113725"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nephelometry vs. Immunoturbidimetry assay: Analytical performance on IgG subclasses\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jim.2024.113725\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Interest in measuring immunoglobulin G Subclasses (IgG Subclasses) is increasing as more information is gathered and understanding regarding conditions associated with deficiencies of each IgG Subclass grows. Different methodologies are available for the measurement of IgG Subclasses, but their specificities vary. As a result, laboratories choose the methodology that better suits their routine, but which may not necessarily align with the needs of their population. In addition, the lack of standardization for the quantification of IgG Subclasses causes diagnostic gaps when comparing results provided by different methodologies. Thus, the purpose of our research is to compare the analytical performance of The Binding Site's (TBS) Optilite® human Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgG Subclasses Immunoturbidimetry assay, with the Nephelometry method routinely used in our clinical laboratory, Siemens BNII®. Our results show that the Immunoturbidimetry assay appears to be the most reliable to evaluate IgG Subclasses: the sum of IgG Subclasses and Total IgG correlate better than by Nephelometry. Although these methodologies share a similar principle, the comparison of results appears to be compromised. Therefore, prior to switching methodologies, further studies should be conducted to assess which methodology could be better applied to specific populations. It is also essential to standardise IgG Subclasses assays to reduce discrepancies that arise from comparing results.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of immunological methods\",\"volume\":\"532 \",\"pages\":\"Article 113725\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of immunological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022175924001108\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of immunological methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022175924001108","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着信息量的不断增加以及人们对与每种 IgG 亚类缺乏症相关的疾病的了解日益加深,人们对免疫球蛋白 G 亚类(IgG 亚类)的测量越来越感兴趣。目前有不同的方法可用于测量 IgG 亚类,但其特异性各不相同。因此,实验室会选择更适合其常规工作的方法,但这不一定符合其人群的需求。此外,IgG 亚类的定量缺乏标准化,在比较不同方法的结果时会造成诊断上的差距。因此,我们研究的目的是比较 The Binding Site (TBS) Optilite® 人免疫球蛋白 G (IgG) 和 IgG 亚类免疫比浊测定法与我们临床实验室常规使用的西门子 BNII® 肾图测定法的分析性能。我们的结果表明,免疫比浊法似乎是评估 IgG 亚类最可靠的方法:IgG 亚类的总和与总 IgG 的相关性优于肾盂肾炎测定法。虽然这些方法的原理相似,但结果的比较似乎会受到影响。因此,在转换方法之前,应进行进一步研究,以评估哪种方法更适用于特定人群。此外,还必须对 IgG 亚类检测方法进行标准化,以减少因比较结果而产生的差异。
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
Nephelometry vs. Immunoturbidimetry assay: Analytical performance on IgG subclasses

Interest in measuring immunoglobulin G Subclasses (IgG Subclasses) is increasing as more information is gathered and understanding regarding conditions associated with deficiencies of each IgG Subclass grows. Different methodologies are available for the measurement of IgG Subclasses, but their specificities vary. As a result, laboratories choose the methodology that better suits their routine, but which may not necessarily align with the needs of their population. In addition, the lack of standardization for the quantification of IgG Subclasses causes diagnostic gaps when comparing results provided by different methodologies. Thus, the purpose of our research is to compare the analytical performance of The Binding Site's (TBS) Optilite® human Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgG Subclasses Immunoturbidimetry assay, with the Nephelometry method routinely used in our clinical laboratory, Siemens BNII®. Our results show that the Immunoturbidimetry assay appears to be the most reliable to evaluate IgG Subclasses: the sum of IgG Subclasses and Total IgG correlate better than by Nephelometry. Although these methodologies share a similar principle, the comparison of results appears to be compromised. Therefore, prior to switching methodologies, further studies should be conducted to assess which methodology could be better applied to specific populations. It is also essential to standardise IgG Subclasses assays to reduce discrepancies that arise from comparing results.

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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
120
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Immunological Methods is devoted to covering techniques for: (1) Quantitating and detecting antibodies and/or antigens. (2) Purifying immunoglobulins, lymphokines and other molecules of the immune system. (3) Isolating antigens and other substances important in immunological processes. (4) Labelling antigens and antibodies. (5) Localizing antigens and/or antibodies in tissues and cells. (6) Detecting, and fractionating immunocompetent cells. (7) Assaying for cellular immunity. (8) Documenting cell-cell interactions. (9) Initiating immunity and unresponsiveness. (10) Transplanting tissues. (11) Studying items closely related to immunity such as complement, reticuloendothelial system and others. (12) Molecular techniques for studying immune cells and their receptors. (13) Imaging of the immune system. (14) Methods for production or their fragments in eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. In addition the journal will publish articles on novel methods for analysing the organization, structure and expression of genes for immunologically important molecules such as immunoglobulins, T cell receptors and accessory molecules involved in antigen recognition, processing and presentation. Submitted full length manuscripts should describe new methods of broad applicability to immunology and not simply the application of an established method to a particular substance - although papers describing such applications may be considered for publication as a short Technical Note. Review articles will also be published by the Journal of Immunological Methods. In general these manuscripts are by solicitation however anyone interested in submitting a review can contact the Reviews Editor and provide an outline of the proposed review.
期刊最新文献
Isolation of anti-Ancylostoma-secreted protein 5 (ASP5) antibody from a naïve antibody phage library. Inducing and regulating human naive CD4+ t cell proliferation by different antigen presenting cells. Workflow improvement and financial gain after integration of high-throughput sample processing system with flow cytometer in a high-volume pathology laboratory: Results from a prospective comparative study using Lean principles Development of an ELISA for an effective potency determination of recombinant rabies human monoclonal antibody A note of caution for using calmodulin antibodies
×
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