Evaluation of immunoturbidimetric specific protein methods using the Architect ci8200: comparison with immunonephelometry

Ann Clin Biochem 2007;44:529-536
doi:10.1258/000456307782268237
© 2007 Association for Clinical Biochemistry

 

This Article
Right arrow

Full Text (PDF)

Right arrow
Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow
Email this article to a friend
Right arrow

Similar articles in this journal

Right arrow
Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow
Download to citation manager
Right arrow
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow
Articles by Denham, E.
Right arrow
Articles by Boswell, D R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow
PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking

What’s this?

Original Articles


Elizabeth Denham,
Barbara Mohn,
Linda Tucker,
Andrea Lun,
Peter Cleave and
D Ross Boswell


Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand;
Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand;
Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand;
Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand;
Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand;
Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand


Background: Specific proteins have traditionally been analyzedusing methodologies such as immunonephelometry on specializedanalyzers. It is now possible to perform specific protein testingon clinical chemistry analyzers using immunoturbidimetry. Performancecharacteristics of turbidimetric assays for eight common specificproteins were evaluated against a nephelometric method.

Methods: The Abbott Architect ci8200 and the Beckman Immagewere used to perform IgA, IgG, IgM, C3, C4, haptoglobin, andtransferrin testing. Abbott, Sentinel and Roche reagents wereused to perform CRP testing on the ci8200. The specific proteinassays were evaluated for precision, linearity, limit of detection,functional sensitivity, method comparison, prozone, and workflow.

Results: Total precision for the immunoturbidimetric assayswas consistently better than 2% CV and linear throughout thedynamic range of the assays (recovery ± 10% of targetvalues). The limits of detection, functional sensitivities,and accuracy (as determined by performance against target valuesfor proficiency testing samples and reference materials) aresuitable for clinical purposes. Method comparison, as determinedby correlation coefficients, and performance against proficiencytesting samples, demonstrated good agreement between the turbidimetricand nephelometric tests. Both the turbidimetric and nephelometricassays provided reliable results under conditions of antigenexcess. Specific protein test requests could be consolidatedwithin our routine chemistry workload without impacting analyticaltest throughput.

Conclusions: As demonstrated by their performance characteristics,the Architect ci8200 immunoturbidimetric specific protein assaysare suitable for routine use and correlate well with representativeimmunonephelometric assays on the Beckman Immage analyzer. Theability to perform specific protein analyses on an integratedclinical chemistry/immunoassay system can allow for consolidationof testing on a single platform, resulting in improved laboratoryoperations efficiency.


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What’s this?