The investigation of interferences in immunoassay

Ward, Greg; Simpson, Aaron; Boscato, Lyn; Hickman, Peter E.

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.08.015

Cited by 118 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Laboratorians are well versed in investigating potential interferences in chemistry and immunochemistry assays, and strategies to evaluate the most commonly known causes have been reviewed previously (1,2). Biotin interference is a relatively new discovery (3), but many of the methods used to investigate this interference overlap with those that are classically recognized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biotin Interference in Clinical Immunoassays

Colon

Greene

2018

The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Shifts in consumer behavior and clinical practice have increased reports of biotin interference in immunoassays that incorporate biotin-streptavidin linkages in their design. This rise has significant implications because immunoassays are used to measure a wide range of analytes across medical specialties. The objective of this article was to review the mechanisms of biotin interference, define the scope of affected immunoassays, and summarize strategies for identifying and minimizing biotin interference in clinical samples. Content: The literature was reviewed for reports of biotin interference and sorted by manufacturer. Abstracts from recent scientific meetings and manufacturer-provided data were also reviewed. Summary: Immunoassays across a range of different manufacturer platforms are subject to interference by exogenous biotin supplementation. Providers and laboratorians must be aware of this potential interference to avoid patient harm.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biotin Interference in Clinical Immunoassays

Colon

Greene

2018

The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notably, the possible interferences might occur due to non-validation immunoassay and caused false seronegativity. The interferences included limited affinity and specificity of the test antibody for elephant IgG, non-specific binding by undesired antibody activity or other cross-reactivity substances, and endogenous antibody in serum sample and serum quality [ 33 ]. Nevertheless, we considerably conducted the serological tests to minimize the negative interferences by serum quality control, such as avoiding of hemolysis or lipemia blood samples in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serological study on brucellosis in captive elephants (Elephas maximus) and stray dogs in North Thailand

Ngamkala

Angkawanish²,

Nokkaew

et al. 2020

Vet World

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Brucellosis is considered as an important zoonotic disease caused by various strains of Brucella in numerous host species. Although brucellosis has been reported in almost animal species, the relevance of brucellosis infection and diagnostic technique in Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) has been limited. The present serological investigation aimed to investigate the antibody response to Brucella abortus in captive Asian elephants in North Thailand. Moreover, further serological survey was also conducted to detect the antibody response to Brucella canis in stray dogs cohabiting the same area as the elephant herd. Materials and Methods: Serum samples were collected from 40 captive Asian elephants and submitted for serological analysis based on B. abortus antigen using Rose Bengal plate test (RBPT) in combination with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-tube agglutination test (EDTA-TAT) as a supplementary test and by commercial indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA). In addition, serum samples were also obtained from 16 stray dogs that live nearby the elephant-raising area and were tested using commercial Dot-ELISA based on B. canis antigen. Results: Serological analysis in captive Asian elephants showed 100% seronegative (40/40) from all serological tests response to B. abortus. For stray dogs, 12.5% (2/16) had a low positive reaction response to B. canis. Conclusion: The serological survey for brucellosis in Asian elephant was adapted and applied using RBPT, EDTA-TAT, and iELISA in the present study. For future evaluation, we recommended the use of a combination of serological tests with validation together with comparing by direct detection such as bacterial isolation to provide an appropriate brucellosis surveillance program in Asian elephants. In addition, the surveillance of stray dogs or multispecies habitation should be kept into considerations.

show abstract

“…2). The inability of the ELISA to detect the spiked GPIHBP1 indicated "immunoassay interference," which can be caused by autoantibodies (39)(40)(41)(42). Indeed, the plasma of both chylomicronemia patients contained autoantibodies against GPIHBP1 (35).…”

Section: Downloaded Frommentioning

confidence: 99%

Chylomicronemia from GPIHBP1 autoantibodies

Miyashita

Lutz²,

Hudgins

et al. 2020

Journal of Lipid Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some cases of chylomicronemia are caused by autoantibodies against GPIHBP1, an endothelial cell protein that shuttles lipoprotein lipase (LPL) to the capillary lumen. GPIHBP1 autoantibodies prevent binding and transport of LPL by GPIHBP1, thereby disrupting the lipolytic processing of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. Here, we review the “GPIHBP1 autoantibody syndrome” and summarize clinical and laboratory findings in 22 patients. All patients had GPIHBP1 autoantibodies and chylomicronemia, but we did not find a correlation between triglyceride levels and autoantibody levels. Many of the patients had a history of pancreatitis, and most had clinical and/or serological evidence of autoimmune disease. IgA autoantibodies were present in all patients, and IgG4 autoantibodies were present in 19 of 22 patients. Patients with GPIHBP1 autoantibodies had low plasma LPL levels, consistent with impaired delivery of LPL into capillaries. Plasma levels of GPIHBP1, measured with a monoclonal antibody–based ELISA, were very low in 17 patients, reflecting the inability of the ELISA to detect GPIHBP1 in the presence of autoantibodies (immunoassay interference). However, GPIHBP1 levels were very high in 5 patients, indicating little capacity of their autoantibodies to interfere with the ELISA. Recently, several GPIHBP1 autoantibody syndrome patients were treated successfully with rituximab, resulting in the disappearance of GPIHBP1 autoantibodies and normalization of both plasma triglyceride and LPL levels. The GPIHBP1 autoantibody syndrome should be considered in any patient with newly acquired and unexplained chylomicronemia.

show abstract

The investigation of interferences in immunoassay

Cited by 118 publications

References 60 publications

Biotin Interference in Clinical Immunoassays

Biotin Interference in Clinical Immunoassays

Serological study on brucellosis in captive elephants (Elephas maximus) and stray dogs in North Thailand

Chylomicronemia from GPIHBP1 autoantibodies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About