How Accurate is Your Sclerostin Measurement? Comparison Between Three Commercially Available Sclerostin ELISA Kits
| Autor: | Emily Fisher, Isabelle Piec, William D. Fraser, Christopher Washbourne, Sarah Jackson, Jonathan Tang, Julie P. Greeves |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2015 |
| Předmět: |
0301 basic medicine
Adult Genetic Markers medicine.medical_specialty Adolescent Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism 030209 endocrinology & metabolism Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Edta plasma Sclerostin Measurement 03 medical and health sciences chemistry.chemical_compound Young Adult 0302 clinical medicine Endocrinology Internal medicine medicine Humans Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Bone formation Adaptor Proteins Signal Transducing business.industry Reproducibility of Results Clinical Practice 030104 developmental biology chemistry Potential biomarkers Bone Morphogenetic Proteins Sclerostin Reagent Kits Diagnostic business Biomarkers |
| Zdroj: | Calcified tissue international. 98(6) |
| ISSN: | 1432-0827 |
| Popis: | Sclerostin, bone formation antagonist is in the spotlight as a potential biomarker for diseases presenting with associated bone disorders such as chronic kidney disease (CDK-MBD). Accurate measurement of sclerostin is therefore important. Several immunoassays are available to measure sclerostin in serum and plasma. We compared the performance of three commercial ELISA kits. We measured sclerostin concentrations in serum and EDTA plasma obtained from healthy young (18-26 years) human subjects using kits from Biomedica, TECOmedical and from R&D Systems. The circulating sclerostin concentrations were systematically higher when measured with the Biomedica assay (serum: 35.5 ± 1.1 pmol/L; EDTA: 39.4 ± 2.0 pmol/L; mean ± SD) as compared with TECOmedical (serum: 21.8 ± 0.7 pmol/L; EDTA: 27.2 ± 1.3 pmol/L) and R&D Systems (serum: 7.6 ± 0.3 pmol/L; EDTA: 30.9 ± 1.5 pmol/L). We found a good correlation between the assay for EDTA plasma (r > 0.6; p < 0.001) while in serum, only measurements obtained using TECOmedical and R&D Systems assays correlated significantly (r = 0.78; p < 0.001). There was no correlation between matrices results when using the Biomedica kit (r = 0.20). The variability in values generated from Biomedica, R&D Systems and TECOmedical assays raises questions regarding the accuracy and specificity of the assays. Direct comparison of studies using different kits is not possible and great care should be given to measurement of sclerostin, with traceability of reagents. Standardization with appropriate material is required before different sclerostin assays can be introduced in clinical practice. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink