BACKGROUND: The analytical and clinical performance of homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays has been reported, but their reactions with subfractions of LDL and VLDL have not been described in detail. METHODS: We evaluated reaction selectivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays, LDLk (Kyowa Medex) and LDLd (Daiichi Pure Chemical), with ultracentrifugally isolated VLDL and LDL subfractions to identify the lipoprotein particles from which the cholesterol recognized by these assays originates. RESULTS: The LDLd (y) and LDLk (x) methods correlated highly for whole serum samples: y = 0.986x - 39.5 mg/L (r = 0.966; n = 34). In isolated VLDL, the LDLk and the LDLd methods recovered 17.3% and 23.8% of cholesterol, respectively; but correlation analysis revealed differential reactivity to small and large VLDL particles. For the isolated LDL subfraction of density 1.019-1.040 kg/L, the LDLd method had significantly higher reactivity (95.6-98.7%) than the LDLk (88.4-92.0%). Both methods, however, demonstrated poor recovery (approximately 50%) for the 1.050-1.063 kg/L fraction, indicating incomplete reactivity with small, dense LDL. Reactivity with lipoprotein(a) was better (71.2-90.8%) for both methods than with small LDL. For intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), there was no significant difference in recovery between the two methods (71.7% for LDLk and 68.9% for LDLd), but the LDLk method appeared to be more sensitive to IDL particle size. CONCLUSIONS: The two homogeneous assays for LDL-cholesterol demonstrate only partial reactivity to small, dense LDL and nonspecific reactions to VLDL particles. Modification will be required in the homogeneous methods to obtain LDL-cholesterol values equivalent to those obtained by ultracentrifugation.
BACKGROUND: The analytical and clinical performance of homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays has been reported, but their reactions with subfractions of LDL and VLDL have not been described in detail. METHODS: We evaluated reaction selectivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays, LDLk (Kyowa Medex) and LDLd (Daiichi Pure Chemical), with ultracentrifugally isolated VLDL and LDL subfractions to identify the lipoprotein particles from which the cholesterol recognized by these assays originates. RESULTS: The LDLd (y) and LDLk (x) methods correlated highly for whole serum samples: y = 0.986x - 39.5 mg/L (r = 0.966; n = 34). In isolated VLDL, the LDLk and the LDLd methods recovered 17.3% and 23.8% of cholesterol, respectively; but correlation analysis revealed differential reactivity to small and large VLDL particles. For the isolated LDL subfraction of density 1.019-1.040 kg/L, the LDLd method had significantly higher reactivity (95.6-98.7%) than the LDLk (88.4-92.0%). Both methods, however, demonstrated poor recovery (approximately 50%) for the 1.050-1.063 kg/L fraction, indicating incomplete reactivity with small, dense LDL. Reactivity with lipoprotein(a) was better (71.2-90.8%) for both methods than with small LDL. For intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), there was no significant difference in recovery between the two methods (71.7% for LDLk and 68.9% for LDLd), but the LDLk method appeared to be more sensitive to IDL particle size. CONCLUSIONS: The two homogeneous assays for LDL-cholesterol demonstrate only partial reactivity to small, dense LDL and nonspecific reactions to VLDL particles. Modification will be required in the homogeneous methods to obtain LDL-cholesterol values equivalent to those obtained by ultracentrifugation.
Authors: W Greg Miller; Gary L Myers; Ikunosuke Sakurabayashi; Lorin M Bachmann; Samuel P Caudill; Andrzej Dziekonski; Selvin Edwards; Mary M Kimberly; William J Korzun; Elizabeth T Leary; Katsuyuki Nakajima; Masakazu Nakamura; Göran Nilsson; Robert D Shamburek; George W Vetrovec; G Russell Warnick; Alan T Remaley Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 8.327