| Literature DB >> 23762638 |
Stephen E Bartell1, Heiko L Schoenfuss.
Abstract
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are important tools in aquatic toxicology and have become crucial in assessing exposure concentrations in the aquatic environment and acute physiological responses in exposed organisms. These assays utilize the inherent properties of antibodies to recognize and selectively bind a target molecule, while largely ignoring other molecules to provide semiquantitative values. A variety of methodologies to measure plasma vitellogenin using ELISAs have generated widely divergent data. Limitations of the ELISA method are known in the wider immunology field, though aquatic toxicologists may be less familiar with these limitations. We evaluated several mechanisms contributing to the divergent vitellogenin data in the literature. Antibody affinities and the matrix in which standard curves are constructed are possible error generators. These errors can be amplified by large sample dilutions necessary to fall within the standard curve. It is important for the aquatic toxicology research community to realize the limitations and understand the pitfalls of absolute plasma vitellogenin data in their studies.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23762638 PMCID: PMC3671736 DOI: 10.5402/2012/942804
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Toxicol ISSN: 2090-6188
Figure 1Concept map of interactions between antibody specificity and matrix composition in determining likely accuracy of calculated vitellogenin concentrations for a given plasma sample. Predictions of accuracy of an ELISA using a specific antibody and similar or different matrices follow the concepts of antibody affinity and likelihood that plasma proteins will interfere with the recognition of the target molecule by the antibody.
The effects of dilution medium on measured concentrations of vitellogenin (mean ± standard error, (sample size)). Plasma from three fathead minnows was analyzed via competitive ELISA using either polyclonal or monoclonal antibody and quantified in one of three separate standard curves prepared in different matrices. Normal method: prepared in phosphate-based dilution buffer. Diluted plasma: unexposed plasma substituted for dilution buffer, where the plasma was diluted with the standards across a range of 1 : 16 to 1 : 1024. Constant plasma: unexposed plasma substituted for dilution buffer with standards added, where the plasma was diluted 1 : 500. Variability in number of samples analyzed reflects sample values outside the linear range of standard curve.
| Sample | Polyclonal antiserum | Monoclonal antibody | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal method | Diluted plasma | Constant plasma | Normal method | Diluted plasma | Constant plasma | |
| A | 2926 (1) | 89 ± 25.4 (3) | 94 ± 2.4 (2) | 920 ± 49.3 (2) | 349 ± 102.6 (3) | 547 ± 74.8 (2) |
| B | 1547 (1) | 79 ± 16.7 (3) | 100 ± 37.7 (2) | 1147 (1) | 408 ± 147.0 (3) | 807 ± 72.7 (2) |
| C | 1997 (1) | 77 ± 15.3 (3) | 94 ± 39.7 (2) | 453 ± 75.2 (2) | 206 ± 38.2 (3) | 252 ± 54.1 (2) |
Figure 2Standard curves generated using polyclonal antisera (a) or monoclonal (b) antibodies against fathead minnow vitellogenin. Standard vitellogenin was diluted across seven points in three different matrices. Normal method: prepared in phosphate-based dilution buffer. Diluted plasma: unexposed plasma substituted for dilution buffer, where the plasma was diluted with the standards across a range of 1 : 16 to 1 : 1024. Constant plasma: unexposed plasma substituted for dilution buffer with standards added, where the plasma was diluted 1 : 500. Unexposed fathead minnow plasma confirmed by ELISA for undetectable vitellogenin at a detection limit of 3 μg/mL.
Recovery of purified vitellogenin added to dilution buffer and measured via competitive polyclonal ELISA. Multiple dilutions of purified vitellogenin were prepared in PBS/1% BSA and incubated with antivitellogenin rabbit polyclonal antiserum prior to exposure to microtiter plates coated with the identical purified vitellogenin. Recovery is based on purified vitellogenin concentration of 600 μg/mL.
| Recovery effort (date) | Repeated vitellogenin analysis | Vitellogenin concentration | Percent of recovery |
|---|---|---|---|
| mean ± stand. err. | |||
| 3/21/2010 | 642 | 703.4 ± 32.3 | 117% |
| 618 | |||
| 788 | |||
| 753 | |||
| 716 | |||
|
| |||
| 7/9/2010 | 492 | 515 ± 7.2 | 86% |
| 520 | |||
| 538 | |||
| 530 | |||
| 510 | |||
| 500 | |||
|
| |||
| 3/11/2011 | 498 | 463.2 ± 9 | 77% |
| 421 | |||
| 436 | |||
| 504 | |||
| 450 | |||
| 476 | |||
| 467 | |||
| 453 | |||
| 462 | |||