4.7 Article

Noncompetitive Immunoassay Detection System for Haptens on the Basis of Antimetatype Antibodies

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 627-635

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2014.232728

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Small molecules classified as haptens are generally measured by competitive immunoassay, which is theoretically inferior to noncompetitive sandwich immunoassay in terms of sensitivity and specificity. We created a method for developing sandwich immunoassays to measure haptens on the basis of antimetatype antibodies. METHODS: We generated antimetatype monoclonal antibodies against a hapten-antibody immunocomplex using an ex vivo antibody development system, the Autonomously Diversifying Library (ADLib) system. We selected 2 haptens, estradiol (E2) and 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH) D], as analytes. Sandwich immunoassays for these 2 haptens were developed by use of a 96-well microtiter plate and a fully automated chemiluminescence analyzer, and the performances of these immunoassays were investigated. RESULTS: The developed assays exhibited sensitivity high enough to detect target haptens in serum samples. The limit of detection of the ELISA for E-2 was 3.13 pg/mL, and that of the fully automated chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) system was 2.1 ng/mL for 25(OH) D. The cross-reactivity with immunoreactive derivatives was effectively improved compared with the competitive assay. The CVs for the sandwich ELISA for E2 were 4.2%-12.6% (intraassay) and 6.2%-21.8% (total imprecision). The CVs for the sandwich CLEIA for 25(OH) D were 1.0%-2.3% (intraassay) and 1.9%-3.5% (total imprecision). In particular, the sandwich CLEIA for 25(OH) D showed correlations of r = 0.99 with bothLC-MS/MSand a commercially available I-125 RIA. CONCLUSIONS: Our method represents a potentially simple and practical approach for routine assays of haptens, including vitamins, hormones, drugs, and toxins. (C) 2015 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据