Six approaches to routine quantification of human monoclonal immunoglobulin M compared.
Six approaches to routine quantification of human monoclonal immunoglobulin M compared.
复制标题
人单克隆免疫球蛋白 M 常规定量的六种方法进行了比较。
DOI：
10.1093/clinchem/30.5.774
复制
发表时间：
1984
影响因子：
9.3
通讯作者：
F. Rousselet
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. Pontet;J. Auget;F. Rousselet
比较了6种测定单克隆IgM的常规技术：标准电泳、Technicon AIP系统、Hyland激光浊度法、Beckman免疫化学系统、Behring激光浊度法和径向免疫扩散法。使用非参数方差统计分析（弗里德曼检验）和Wilcoxon检验对数据进行评估。我们研究的27份含单克隆IgM的血清通过不同的技术得到了不同的结果。来自15名多克隆IgM高于正常水平的“参考”人群的血清对所有技术产生相同的结果。这些统计结果与量化IgM的各种方法所涉及的生物物理机制一致。我们得出结论，这些不同的系统在估计多克隆IgM时是等效的，但在单克隆IgM评估中不能（也不应该）产生相同的值。单克隆IgM的结果必须根据所测IgM的分子形式和免疫特异性来解释。
Six routine techniques for the determination of monoclonal IgM are compared: standard electrophoresis, the Technicon AIP system, Hyland laser nephelometry, Beckman Immunochemistry System, Behring laser nephelometry, and radial immunodiffusion. The data are evaluated by use of a nonparametric statistical analysis of variance by ranks (Friedman test) and Wilcoxon's test. The 27 sera containing monoclonal IgM that we studied yielded different results by the various techniques. Sera from a "reference" population of 15 subjects having above-normal polyclonal IgM yielded identical results for all techniques. These statistical findings agree with the biophysical mechanisms involved in the various ways of quantifying IgM. We conclude that these different systems are equivalent for estimating polyclonal IgM, but cannot (and should not) yield identical values when used in monoclonal IgM evaluations. Results for monoclonal IgM must be interpreted in terms of the molecular forms and immunological specificities of the assayed IgM.