How Accurate is Your Sclerostin Measurement? Comparison Between Three Commercially Available Sclerostin ELISA Kits.

How Accurate is Your Sclerostin Measurement? Comparison Between Three Commercially Available Sclerostin ELISA Kits.

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.

Further evaluation of an ELISA kit for detection of antibodies to a nonstructural protein of foot-and-mouth disease virus.

An ELISA kit for detection of antibodies to a nonstructural protein of foot-and-mouth disease (FMDV) was further evaluated using sequentially collected serum samples of experimentally infected animals, because the sensitivity of the kit used in a previous study was significantly low in field animals. The kit fully detected antibodies in infected animals without vaccination; however, the first detections of antibodies by the kit were later than those by the liquid-phase blocking ELISA that is used for serological surveillance in the aftermath of outbreaks in Japan, for detection of antibodies to structural proteins of FMDV.
Additionally, although the kit effectively detected antibodies in infected cattle with vaccination, there were several infected pigs with vaccination for which the kit did not detect antibodies during the experimental period. Taken together, the kit may not be suitable for serological surveillance after an FMD outbreak either with or without emergency vaccination in FMD-free countries.

ELISA Detection of Phenazepam, Etizolam, Pyrazolam, Flubromazepam, Diclazepam and Delorazepam in Blood Using Immunalysis® Benzodiazepine Kit.

Phenazepam and etizolam were the first uncontrolled benzodiazepines available for sale in the UK. Pyrazolam, flubromazepam and diclazepam are not used medicinally anywhere in the world; they are produced exclusively for the uncontrolled, recreational market. It is important to know whether potentially abused drugs like these can be detected in routine toxicological screening tests.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the Immunalysis® Benzodiazepines ELISA kit could detect phenazepam, etizolam, pyrazolam, flubromazepam, diclazepam and its metabolite delorazepam. Their cross-reactivity was assessed by comparing the absorbance of the drug with that of oxazepam, the reference standard. This study found that these uncontrolled benzodiazepines cross-react sufficiently to produce a positive result with the Immunalysis® Benzodiazepine ELISA kit.
How Accurate is Your Sclerostin Measurement? Comparison Between Three Commercially Available Sclerostin ELISA Kits.
Cross-reactivity ranged from 79 to 107% for phenazepam, etizolam, pyrazolam, flubromazepam, diclazepam and delorazepam fortified into blood. The results show that it is possible to detect these newer benzodiazepines with traditional forensic toxicology laboratory tools and it is important to include these benzodiazepines in the confirmation tests.

Differential Diagnosis of Japanese Encephalitis Virus Infections with the Inbios JE Detect™ and DEN Detect™ MAC-ELISA Kits.

Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) is the leading cause of pediatric viral neurological disease in Asia. The JEV-specific IgM antibody-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MAC-ELISA) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and serum is the recommended method of laboratory diagnosis, but specificity of JEV MAC-ELISA can be low due to cross-reactivity.
To increase the specificity of the commercially available JEDetect™ MAC-ELISA (JEDetect), a differential testing algorithm was developed in which samples tested by JEDetect with positive results were subsequently tested by the DENDetect™ MAC-ELISA (DENDetect) kit, and results of both tests were used to make the final interpretation.
The testing algorithm was evaluated with a reference panel of serum and CSF samples submitted for confirmatory testing. In serum, the false Japanese encephalitis (JE) positive rate was reduced, but sequential testing in CSF resulted in reduced JE specificity, as true JEV+ CSF samples had positive results by both JEDetect and DENDetect and were classified as JE- (dengue virus [DENV]+). Differential diagnosis of JE by sequential testing with JEDetect and DENDetect increased specificity for JE in serum, but more data with CSF is needed to make a final determination on the usefulness of this testing algorithm for CSF.
The safety of gluten-free foods is essential for celiac disease (CD) patients to prevent serious complications. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are recommended for gluten analysis to monitor the compliance of gluten-free products to the Codex threshold of 20 mg gluten/kg.
However, due to the specific features of each gluten ELISA test kit, the results often deviate systematically and largely depend on the characteristics of the antibody. This comprehensive study assessed the specificities and sensitivities of three monoclonal (R5, G12, and Skerritt) and two polyclonal antibodies to the alcohol-soluble prolamin and alcohol-insoluble glutelin fractions of gluten from wheat, rye, and barley, all of which harbor CD-active epitopes.
Reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography served as independent reference method to quantify gluten protein concentrations and allow comparisons of different gluten fractions within one kit and between kits. Wheat prolamins were detected quite accurately by all antibodies, but high variability between antibody specificities and sensitivities was observed for rye and barley prolamins and rye glutelins, and the largest discrepancies were found for wheat and barley glutelins.
The gluten content (sum of prolamins and glutelins) was either overestimated up to six times (rye) or underestimated up to seven times (barley). Overestimation of gluten contents may unnecessarily limit the availability of gluten-free products, but underestimation represents a serious health risk for CD patients.
[Linking template=”default” type=”products” search=”Pig Myoglobin Skeletal Muscle Biomarker ELISA Kits” header=”3″ limit=”206″ start=”4″ showCatalogNumber=”true” site=”” linkProductCatalogNumber=”true” showPrice=”true” showDescription=”true” showAdditionalInformation=”true” showImage=”true” showSchemaMarkup=”true” imageWidth=”” imageHeight=”” site=”” linkProductCatalogNumber=”true”]
It is important to consider these differences between antibodies used in kits and consider what each kit is capable of measuring, especially with samples where the source of gluten is unknown.