Comparison of serum, EDTA plasma and P100 plasma for luminex-based biomarker multiplex assays in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the SPIROMICS study.
Comparison of serum, EDTA plasma and P100 plasma for luminex-based biomarker multiplex assays in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the SPIROMICS study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1479-5876-12-9
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-08
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
SPIROMICS Investigators
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O'Neal WK;Anderson W;Basta PV;Carretta EE;Doerschuk CM;Barr RG;Bleecker ER;Christenson SA;Curtis JL;Han MK;Hansel NN;Kanner RE;Kleerup EC;Martinez FJ;Miller BE;Peters SP;Rennard SI;Scholand MB;Tal-Singer R;Woodruff PG;Couper DJ;Davis SM;SPIROMICS Investigators
作为慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）纵向研究的一部分，COPD研究中的亚群和中间结果测量（SPIROMICS），正在收集3200名受试者的血液样本，目的是确定亚表型患者的血液生物标志物并预测疾病进展。为了确定最可靠的样品类型来测量队列中的特定血液分析物，对24名受试者进行了一项初步研究，比较了血清、乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）血浆和EDTA血浆与蛋白酶抑制剂（P100™）。从24名受试者的三种样本类型中，选择105种分析物，排列在12个多重平台和一个单一平台（Myriad-RBM）中，以两份的形式评估与COPD的潜在相关性。计算了信度系数和变异系数。每个分析物的性能和平均分析物水平跨样本类型进行评估。20%的分析物在任何类型的样品中都不能始终检测到。与血清相比，EDTA血浆中的12种分析物具有更高的可靠性和/或更小的CV，与EDTA血浆相比，血清中的11种分析物具有更高的可靠性和/或更小的CV。虽然大多数分析物的EDTA血浆和P100血浆的可靠性测量相似，但P100血浆的CV在8种分析物中略有增加。多路复用器内的每个分析物产生独立的测量特征，使单个多路复用器的样品类型选择复杂化。血清和血浆的可检测性和可测量性有显著差异。如果在多路复用中测量的分析物之间存在较大的可靠性差异，特别是如果基于样本类型的值不同，则多路复用可能不是理想的。对于某些分析物，在实验设计时应考虑较大的CV，并且可能需要使用重复和/或三次样本。这些结果应该证明是有用的研究评估样品的选择，以评估潜在的血液生物标志物。
As a part of the longitudinal Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) study, Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD study (SPIROMICS), blood samples are being collected from 3200 subjects with the goal of identifying blood biomarkers for sub-phenotyping patients and predicting disease progression. To determine the most reliable sample type for measuring specific blood analytes in the cohort, a pilot study was performed from a subset of 24 subjects comparing serum, Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) plasma, and EDTA plasma with proteinase inhibitors (P100™). 105 analytes, chosen for potential relevance to COPD, arranged in 12 multiplex and one simplex platform (Myriad-RBM) were evaluated in duplicate from the three sample types from 24 subjects. The reliability coefficient and the coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated. The performance of each analyte and mean analyte levels were evaluated across sample types. 20% of analytes were not consistently detectable in any sample type. Higher reliability and/or smaller CV were determined for 12 analytes in EDTA plasma compared to serum, and for 11 analytes in serum compared to EDTA plasma. While reliability measures were similar for EDTA plasma and P100 plasma for a majority of analytes, CV was modestly increased in P100 plasma for eight analytes. Each analyte within a multiplex produced independent measurement characteristics, complicating selection of sample type for individual multiplexes. There were notable detectability and measurability differences between serum and plasma. Multiplexing may not be ideal if large reliability differences exist across analytes measured within the multiplex, especially if values differ based on sample type. For some analytes, the large CV should be considered during experimental design, and the use of duplicate and/or triplicate samples may be necessary. These results should prove useful for studies evaluating selection of samples for evaluation of potential blood biomarkers.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Thomsen, Mette;Ingebrigtsen, Truls Sylvan;Nordestgaard, Borge G.
通讯作者：
Nordestgaard, Borge G.
影响因子：
7.5
作者：
Golanski, J;Pietrucha, T;Watala, C
通讯作者：
Watala, C
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Aguilar-Mahecha, Adriana;Kuzyk, Michael A.;Basik, Mark
通讯作者：
Basik, Mark
DOI：
10.1128/cdli.6.1.89-95.1999
发表时间：
1999-01-01
期刊：
CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY IMMUNOLOGY
影响因子：
--
作者：
Aziz, N;Nishanian, P;Fahey, JL
通讯作者：
Fahey, JL
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Randall, Sarah A.;McKay, Matthew J.;Molloy, Mark P.
通讯作者：
Molloy, Mark P.