2013
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2012-0648
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance evaluation of human cytokines profiles obtained by various multiplexed-based technologies underlines a need for standardization

Abstract: Our results highlight the lack of transferability between the three commercially available multiplex methods evaluated (CBA, PBAT and Luminex Technology). Analytical performances are adequate for longitudinal studies using a same methodology but caution should be used for comparisons between results obtained with different methods underlying a need for standardization.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, we confirmed that the absolute values of the proteins detected were different between the two tested technologies. Such discordance could be due to differences in the capture and/or detection antibodies and to a differential sensitivity to matrix interference (Dupuy et al, 2013;Khan et al, 2004). However, among the cytokines for which the quantification was consistent, we observed strong inter-platform correlations for IL-8 and VEGF (Table 5), in accordance with previous findings (Chowdhury et al, 2009;Dabitao et al, 2011;Huttunen et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Indeed, we confirmed that the absolute values of the proteins detected were different between the two tested technologies. Such discordance could be due to differences in the capture and/or detection antibodies and to a differential sensitivity to matrix interference (Dupuy et al, 2013;Khan et al, 2004). However, among the cytokines for which the quantification was consistent, we observed strong inter-platform correlations for IL-8 and VEGF (Table 5), in accordance with previous findings (Chowdhury et al, 2009;Dabitao et al, 2011;Huttunen et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Indeed, both platforms failed to robustly detect the GM-CSF, IL-1β, IL-2 and IL-5 cytokines for which previous investigations had reported significant variations in expression either during MDE treatment or at baseline in comparison to healthy controls (Biancotto et al, 2013;Dahl et al, 2014;Hernandez et al, 2008;Schmidt et al, 2014;Shelton et al, 2015). These types of inconsistency in the results have already been reported (Breen et al, 2011;Chaturvedi et al, 2011;Dabitao et al, 2011;Dupuy et al, 2013;Fu et al, 2010). In particular, the consensus that the detection of IL-1β suffers from poor performances is of importance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, analytical performances were adequate for longitudinal studies using any 1 method, but standardization was required before results obtained with different methods could be compared. 45 Because comparisons between various commercially available cytokine BBMAs are not completely similar, it will be important to include positive controls (high, medium, low), dilute standards within the given sample matrix, and validate the standards prior to performing the assay on large-scale experimental studies, checking for linearity, recovery, repeatability, and obtaining a dynamic range that is acceptable for the samples to be tested.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted that most of the standard deviations are very high, suggesting a skewed distribution, with a few patients with very high levels and a non-negligible number of patients with cytokine concentrations below the limit of detection [1,2]. This high number of nondetected data (.50%) has been recently described for cytokines assessed by three commercially available multiplex assays [7]. Consequently, caution should be considered about low cytokine circulating concentrations, because most probably measured with an analytical imprecision .20%, making such promising clinical findings somewhat questionable.…”
mentioning
confidence: 70%