A G Costa1, S Cremers, E Dworakowski, M Lazaretti-Castro, J P Bilezikian. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolic Bone Diseases Unit, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 630 W. 168th St PH 8 West, Room 864, New York, NY, 10032, USA, ac3024@columbia.edu.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This study investigates the performance and correlation of sclerostin measurements by two commercially available sclerostin ELISAs from TECOmedical and Biomedica. We found that the correlation between the results of two sclerostin assays is strong. INTRODUCTION: Circulating sclerostin levels may provide insight into the pathophysiology of metabolic bone diseases such as osteoporosis. However, recent studies suggest that commercially available assays give different results. We compare the analytical performance of the two most used commercially available sclerostin ELISAs from TECOmedical and Biomedica. METHODS: Sclerostin levels were assessed in 20 paired serum, EDTA, and heparin plasma convenience samples from hospitalized patients. In addition, sclerostin was measured in serum samples from 34 patients with metabolic bone diseases and from 10 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Samples from three healthy donors were used to determine stability and intra- and inter- assay precision. RESULTS: The average serum sclerostin concentration of all patients (n = 64) was 0.713 ± 0.58 ng/mL with the Biomedica assay and 0.734 ± 0.43 ng/mL with the TECO assay (p < 0.05). The results correlated strongly (r = 0.9; p < 0.0001), with Passing-Bablok regression showing a linear relationship but with a slight systematic and proportional difference between both assays. Sclerostin levels were about 30% higher in plasma than in serum for both assays, while no significant difference was seen between EDTA and heparin plasma. Intra- and inter- precision were <10% for TECO and <20% for Biomedica. Samples were stable for up to three freeze-thaw cycles with both assays. CONCLUSIONS: The two commercially available ELISAs for measuring circulating levels of sclerostin are comparable. However, given the small but statistically significant systematic and proportional differences between both assays, results and reference ranges will be assay-specific. Results will also be specific to serum or plasma.
UNLABELLED: This study investigates the performance and correlation of sclerostin measurements by two commercially available sclerostin ELISAs from TECOmedical and Biomedica. We found that the correlation between the results of two sclerostin assays is strong. INTRODUCTION: Circulating sclerostin levels may provide insight into the pathophysiology of metabolic bone diseases such as osteoporosis. However, recent studies suggest that commercially available assays give different results. We compare the analytical performance of the two most used commercially available sclerostin ELISAs from TECOmedical and Biomedica. METHODS:Sclerostin levels were assessed in 20 paired serum, EDTA, and heparin plasma convenience samples from hospitalized patients. In addition, sclerostin was measured in serum samples from 34 patients with metabolic bone diseases and from 10 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Samples from three healthy donors were used to determine stability and intra- and inter- assay precision. RESULTS: The average serum sclerostin concentration of all patients (n = 64) was 0.713 ± 0.58 ng/mL with the Biomedica assay and 0.734 ± 0.43 ng/mL with the TECO assay (p < 0.05). The results correlated strongly (r = 0.9; p < 0.0001), with Passing-Bablok regression showing a linear relationship but with a slight systematic and proportional difference between both assays. Sclerostin levels were about 30% higher in plasma than in serum for both assays, while no significant difference was seen between EDTA and heparin plasma. Intra- and inter- precision were <10% for TECO and <20% for Biomedica. Samples were stable for up to three freeze-thaw cycles with both assays. CONCLUSIONS: The two commercially available ELISAs for measuring circulating levels of sclerostin are comparable. However, given the small but statistically significant systematic and proportional differences between both assays, results and reference ranges will be assay-specific. Results will also be specific to serum or plasma.
Authors: S Thambiah; R Roplekar; P Manghat; I Fogelman; W D Fraser; D Goldsmith; Geeta Hampson Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2012-04-21 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: E Voskaridou; D Christoulas; E Plata; C Bratengeier; A D Anastasilakis; V Komninaka; D Kaliontzi; M Gkotzamanidou; S A Polyzos; M Dimopoulou; E Terpos Journal: Horm Metab Res Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 2.936
Authors: Rutger L van Bezooijen; Bernard A J Roelen; Annemieke Visser; Lianne van der Wee-Pals; Edwin de Wilt; Marcel Karperien; Herman Hamersma; Socrates E Papapoulos; Peter ten Dijke; Clemens W G M Löwik Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Sebastian F Mause; Annika Deck; Mark Hennies; Nadine Kaesler; Pieter Evenepoel; William A Boisvert; Ulf Janssen; Vincent M Brandenburg Journal: Discoveries (Craiova) Date: 2016
Authors: Rosa M A Moysés; Sophie A Jamal; Fabiana G Graciolli; Luciene M dos Reis; Rosilene M Elias Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2015-04-11 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Matthew T Drake; Jennifer S Fenske; Frank A Blocki; Claudia Zierold; Natasha Appelman-Dijkstra; Socrates Papapoulos; Sundeep Khosla Journal: Bone Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Kristine M Erlandson; MaryAnn O'Riordan; Corrilynn O Hileman; Eric Rapaport; Danielle Labbato; Thomas B Campbell; Grace A McComsey Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 2.205