| Literature DB >> 19238200 |
Vasiliki Koliaraki1, Martha Marinou, Theodoros P Vassilakopoulos, Eustathios Vavourakis, Emmanuel Tsochatzis, Gerassimos A Pangalis, George Papatheodoridis, Alexandra Stamoulakatou, Dorine W Swinkels, George Papanikolaou, Avgi Mamalaki.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepcidin is a 25-aminoacid cysteine-rich iron regulating peptide. Increased hepcidin concentrations lead to iron sequestration in macrophages, contributing to the pathogenesis of anaemia of chronic disease whereas decreased hepcidin is observed in iron deficiency and primary iron overload diseases such as hereditary hemochromatosis. Hepcidin quantification in human blood or urine may provide further insights for the pathogenesis of disorders of iron homeostasis and might prove a valuable tool for clinicians for the differential diagnosis of anaemia. This study describes a specific and non-operator demanding immunoassay for hepcidin quantification in human sera. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19238200 PMCID: PMC2640459 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Specificity of the polyclonal antibody against native hepcidin.
(A) Immunohistochemical staining of liver tissue sections using the polyclonal antibody against hepcidin25-His (a-Hep25). Secondary anti-rabbit antibody was used as negative control (negative). The specificity of the polyclonal antibody was verified after reduction of the signal following preincubation with hepcidin25-His. (B) Western blot analysis of serum proteins less than 30 kDa. 10 ml of serum was filtered through a 30 kDa filter, and the filtrate was precipitated with 25% TCA. Precipitated proteins were subjected to electrophoresis on a 4–12% Nu-PAGE gel, followed by Western blot using the polyclonal antibody against hepcidin25-His.
Figure 2Representative calibration curve for recombinant hepcidin25-His.
The range of the assay is 10–1500 µg/L.
Intra-assay variation.
| N | Mean±SD (µg/L) | CV% | |
|
| 12 | 23.25±3.6 | 15.4 |
|
| 12 | 57±5.7 | 9.94 |
|
| 12 | 166.6±13 | 7.83 |
Inter-assay variation.
| N | Mean±SD (µg/L) | CV% | |
|
| 7 | 25.6±3.9 | 15.33 |
|
| 7 | 57.6±2.5 | 4.32 |
|
| 7 | 184.4±16.4 | 8.88 |
Recovery of calibrator added to human serum samples.
| Endogenous hepcidin (µg/L) | Calibrator added (µg/L) | Expected (µg/L) | Observed (µg/L) | Percent Recovery | |
|
| 28.5 | ||||
| 7.5 | 36.02 | 40.86 | 113.4 | ||
| 30 | 58.52 | 58.35 | 99.7 | ||
| 75 | 103.52 | 119.26 | 115.2 | ||
|
| 59.7 | ||||
| 7.5 | 67.2 | 70.95 | 105.6 | ||
| 30 | 89.7 | 89.05 | 99.3 | ||
| 75 | 134.7 | 153.2 | 113.75 | ||
|
| 177 | ||||
| 7.5 | 184.5 | 189.37 | 102.6 | ||
| 30 | 207 | 205.77 | 99.4 | ||
| 75 | 252 | 283.73 | 112.6 |
(Observed concentration/Expected concentration)×100.
Dilution linearity of ELISA.
| Hepcidin (µg/L) | Dilution factor | Expected (µg/L) | Observed (µg/L) | Percent Recovery | |
|
| 23.34 | 1 | 23.34 | ||
| 2 | 11.67 | 11.6 | 99.4 | ||
| 4 | 5.83 | 5.97 | 102.4 | ||
| 8 | 2.92 | 3.05 | 104.6 | ||
|
| 57.73 | 1 | 57.73 | ||
| 2 | 28.86 | 28.45 | 98.5 | ||
| 4 | 14.43 | 13.77 | 95.4 | ||
| 8 | 7.22 | 7.25 | 100.5 | ||
|
| 164.76 | 1 | 164.76 | ||
| 2 | 82.38 | 82.95 | 100.7 | ||
| 4 | 41.19 | 42.67 | 103.6 | ||
| 8 | 20.59 | 21.27 | 103.3 |
(Observed concentration/Expected concentration)×100.
Figure 3Hepcidin serum concentration in healthy controls (control), patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA), juvenile haemochromatosis (JH) and Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL).
Box plots show the 25th and 75th percentile with median value for each group. Minimum and maximum values are also depicted. Significant difference compared to control is indicated by asterisk (**p<0.010).
Figure 4Correlation between serum hepcidin and ferritin in healthy controls.
Hepcidin values measured by our ELISA assay correlate significantly with ferritin levels. Pearson correlation: 0.474 (p = 0.006).
Figure 5Correlation between serum hepcidin measured by our ELISA assay and by the SELDI-TOF-MS method.
Hepcidin values of 6 serum samples, measured by the two methods correlate significantly. Pearson correlation: 0.863 (p = 0.027).