J A Bastarache1, T Koyama2, N E Wickersham3, L B Ware3. 1. Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, T-1218 MCN, Nashville, TN 37232-2650, United States. Electronic address: julie.bastarache@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, T-1218 MCN, Nashville, TN 37232-2650, United States. 3. Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, T-1218 MCN, Nashville, TN 37232-2650, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of multiplex immunoassays, there are very few scientific reports that test the accuracy and reliability of a platform prior to publication of experimental data. Our laboratory has previously demonstrated the need for new assay platform validation prior to use of biologic samples from large studies in order to optimize sample handling and assay performance. METHODS: In this study, our goal was to test the accuracy and reproducibility of an electrochemiluminescent multiplex immunoassay platform (Meso Scale Discovery, MSD®) and compare this platform to validated, singleplex immunoassays (R&D Systems®) using actual study subject (human plasma and mouse bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) and plasma) samples. RESULTS: We found that the MSD platform performed well on intra- and inter-assay comparisons, spike and recovery and cross-platform comparisons. The mean intra-assay CV% and range for MSD were 3.49 (0.0-10.4) for IL-6 and 2.04 (0.1-7.9) for IL-8. The correlation between values for identical samples measured on both MSD and R&D was R=0.97 for both analytes. The mouse MSD assay had a broader range of CV% with means ranging from 9.5 to 28.5 depending on the analyte. The range of mean CV% was similar for single plex ELISAs at 4.3-23.7 depending on the analyte. Regardless of species or sample type, CV% was more variable at lower protein concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we validated a multiplex electrochemiluminescent assay system and found that it has superior test characteristics in human plasma compared to mouse BALF and plasma. Both human and MSD assays compared favorably to well-validated singleplex ELISAs. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of multiplex immunoassays, there are very few scientific reports that test the accuracy and reliability of a platform prior to publication of experimental data. Our laboratory has previously demonstrated the need for new assay platform validation prior to use of biologic samples from large studies in order to optimize sample handling and assay performance. METHODS: In this study, our goal was to test the accuracy and reproducibility of an electrochemiluminescent multiplex immunoassay platform (Meso Scale Discovery, MSD®) and compare this platform to validated, singleplex immunoassays (R&D Systems®) using actual study subject (human plasma and mouse bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) and plasma) samples. RESULTS: We found that the MSD platform performed well on intra- and inter-assay comparisons, spike and recovery and cross-platform comparisons. The mean intra-assay CV% and range for MSD were 3.49 (0.0-10.4) for IL-6 and 2.04 (0.1-7.9) for IL-8. The correlation between values for identical samples measured on both MSD and R&D was R=0.97 for both analytes. The mouseMSD assay had a broader range of CV% with means ranging from 9.5 to 28.5 depending on the analyte. The range of mean CV% was similar for single plex ELISAs at 4.3-23.7 depending on the analyte. Regardless of species or sample type, CV% was more variable at lower protein concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we validated a multiplex electrochemiluminescent assay system and found that it has superior test characteristics in human plasma compared to mouse BALF and plasma. Both human and MSD assays compared favorably to well-validated singleplex ELISAs. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Joanna L Richens; Richard A Urbanowicz; Rebecca Metcalf; Jonathan Corne; Paul O'Shea; Lucy Fairclough Journal: J Biomol Screen Date: 2010-02-22
Authors: Katrina G Salvante; Eleanor Brindle; Daniel McConnell; Kathleen O'connor; Pablo A Nepomnaschy Journal: Am J Hum Biol Date: 2011-11-28 Impact factor: 1.937
Authors: Elizabeth Crabb Breen; Sandra M Reynolds; Christopher Cox; Lisa P Jacobson; Larry Magpantay; Candice B Mulder; Oliver Dibben; Joseph B Margolick; Jay H Bream; Elise Sambrano; Otoniel Martínez-Maza; Elizabeth Sinclair; Persephone Borrow; Alan L Landay; Charles R Rinaldo; Philip J Norris Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2011-06-22
Authors: Edward D Siew; T Alp Ikizler; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Ayumi Shintani; Nancy Wickersham; Frederick Bossert; Josh F Peterson; Chirag R Parikh; Addison K May; Lorraine B Ware Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Julie A Bastarache; Sara C Sebag; Jennifer K Clune; Brandon S Grove; William E Lawson; David R Janz; L Jackson Roberts; Ryszard Dworski; Nigel Mackman; Lorraine B Ware Journal: Thorax Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: P Scott Eastman; William C Manning; Ferhan Qureshi; Douglas Haney; Guy Cavet; Claire Alexander; Lyndal K Hesterberg Journal: J Pharm Biomed Anal Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 3.935
Authors: Lorraine B Ware; Tatsuki Koyama; Zhiguo Zhao; David R Janz; Nancy Wickersham; Gordon R Bernard; Addison K May; Carolyn S Calfee; Michael A Matthay Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: S Mitsunaga; M Ikeda; S Shimizu; I Ohno; J Furuse; M Inagaki; S Higashi; H Kato; K Terao; A Ochiai Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Darshana Jani; John Allinson; Flora Berisha; Kyra J Cowan; Viswanath Devanarayan; Carol Gleason; Andreas Jeromin; Steve Keller; Masood U Khan; Bill Nowatzke; Paul Rhyne; Laurie Stephen Journal: AAPS J Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Ciara M Shaver; Melinda G Paul; Nathan D Putz; Stuart R Landstreet; Jamie L Kuck; Lauren Scarfe; Nataliya Skrypnyk; Haichun Yang; Fiona E Harrison; Mark P de Caestecker; Julie A Bastarache; Lorraine B Ware Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2019-07-31
Authors: Ciara M Shaver; Brandon S Grove; Nathan D Putz; Jennifer K Clune; William E Lawson; Robert H Carnahan; Nigel Mackman; Lorraine B Ware; Julie A Bastarache Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Ciara M Shaver; Cameron P Upchurch; David R Janz; Brandon S Grove; Nathan D Putz; Nancy E Wickersham; Sergey I Dikalov; Lorraine B Ware; Julie A Bastarache Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Nathan E Brummel; Christopher G Hughes; Jennifer L Thompson; James C Jackson; Pratik Pandharipande; J Brennan McNeil; Rameela Raman; Onur M Orun; Lorraine B Ware; Gordon R Bernard; E Wesley Ely; Timothy D Girard Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Anna Hillström; Jonas Bylin; Ragnvi Hagman; Karin Björhall; Harold Tvedten; Kristian Königsson; Tove Fall; Mads Kjelgaard-Hansen Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 2.741
Authors: Niels Kruse; Michael G Schlossmacher; Walter J Schulz-Schaeffer; Eugeen Vanmechelen; Hugo Vanderstichele; Omar M El-Agnaf; Brit Mollenhauer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Khayriyyah Mohd Hanafiah; Norsyahida Arifin; Yazmin Bustami; Rahmah Noordin; Mary Garcia; David Anderson Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2017-09-07