Quantification of normetanephrine in canine urine using ELISA: evaluation of factors affecting results

Abstract

Catecholamine release increases in dogs with pheochromocytomas and in situations of stress. Although plasma catecholamines degrade rapidly, their metabolites, normetanephrine (NME) and metanephrine (ME), are stable in acidified urine. Our aim was to verify a human urine ELISA kit for the quantification of NME and ME in canine urine and to determine the effects on metabolite stability of sampling time (morning or midday) and day (ordinary or day spent in a clinic). We analyzed 179 urine samples from 17 healthy dogs. For NME, the mean intra-assay CV was 6.0% for all samples and 4.3% for the canine control; inter-assay CVs were 3.3, 3.8, and 12% for high and low concentration human urine positive controls supplied in the ELISA kit and a positive canine control, respectively; spike-recovery was 90–101%. For ME, mean intra-assay CV was 6.5% for samples and 9.0% for the canine control; inter-assay CVs were 12.7, 7.2, and 22.5% for high and low concentration human urine positive controls supplied in the ELISA kit and a positive canine control, respectively; spike-recovery was 85–89%. Dilution recovery was unsatisfactory for both metabolites. Based on our verification results, NME was selected for remaining analyses. We found no effect on NME concentrations of acidification or room temperature storage for up to 24 h. The NME:creatinine ratio was higher after the first of 3 clinic days compared to the same morning (111.2 ± 5.5 vs. 82.9 ± 5.3; p < 0.0001), but not on the other days. NME verification results were generally superior to ME. Dilution studies were unsatisfactory for both metabolites. Given that NME was stable without acidification at room temperature, urine samples can be collected at home. The clinic environment can cause higher NME:creatinine ratios, especially in unaccustomed dogs.

A Detection-Service-Mobile Three-Terminal Software Platform for Point-of-Care Infectious Disease Detection System

“…Common strategies for clinical diagnosis of infectious diseases depend on: (1) culture, identification, or observation of pathogens [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]; (2) detection of specific antigens and antibodies of pathogens [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]; (3) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [ 8 ]; (4) systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (SELEX) [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]; (5) nucleic acid testing (NAT) [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. These approaches often rely on specialized medical facilities and the testing process is cumbersome, requiring professionals to operate special testing instruments to complete the relevant testing.…”