4.7 Article

Quantitative Insulin Analysis Using Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry in a High-Throughput Clinical Laboratory

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 59, 期 9, 页码 1349-1356

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.199794

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Circulating insulin concentrations reflect the amount of endogenous insulin produced by the pancreas and can be monitored to check for insulin resistance. Insulin is commonly measured using immunochemiluminometric assays (ICMA). Unfortunately, differing crossreactivities of the various ICMA antibodies have led to variability in assay results. In contrast, liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)-based approaches can provide a highly specific alternative to immunoassays. METHODS: Insulin was extracted from patient serum and reduced to liberate the insulin B chain. Subsequent resolution of the peptide was achieved by LC coupled to triple-quadrupole MS. Selected-reaction monitoring of B-chain transitions was used for quantification. Recombinant human insulin was used as a calibrator and was compared against the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) reference standard. Bovine insulin and a stable isotopic-labeled (C-13/N-15) human insulin B chain were used and compared as internal standards. RESULTS: The LC-MS/MS assay described herein has been validated according to CLIA guidelines with a limit of detection of 1.8 mu IU/mL (10.8 pmol/L) and a limit of quantitation of 3 mu IU/mL (18.0 pmol/L). A correlation between the LC-MS/MS assay and a US Food and Drug Administration-approved ICMA was completed for patient samples and the resulting Deming regression revealed good agreement. A reference interval for the assay was established. CONCLUSIONS: A simple, high-throughput, quantitative LC-MS/MS insulin assay traceable to the NIBSC standard has been successfully developed and validated. (C) 2013 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