| Literature DB >> 26289208 |
Ibrahim Elsohaby1,2, Siyuan Hou3, J Trenton McClure4, Christopher B Riley5,6, R Anthony Shaw7, Gregory P Keefe8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following the recent development of a new approach to quantitative analysis of IgG concentrations in bovine serum using transmission infrared spectroscopy, the potential to measure IgG levels using technology and a device better designed for field use was investigated. A method using attenuated total reflectance infrared (ATR) spectroscopy in combination with partial least squares (PLS) regression was developed to measure bovine serum IgG concentrations. ATR spectroscopy has a distinct ease-of-use advantage that may open the door to routine point-of-care testing. Serum samples were collected from calves and adult cows, tested by a reference RID method, and ATR spectra acquired. The spectra were linked to the RID-IgG concentrations and then randomly split into two sets: calibration and prediction. The calibration set was used to build a calibration model, while the prediction set was used to assess the predictive performance and accuracy of the final model. The procedure was repeated for various spectral data preprocessing approaches.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26289208 PMCID: PMC4546031 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-015-0539-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Descriptive statistic of immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentrations of 200 bovine serum samples, measured by the reference method of radial immunodiffusion (RID) assay in the calibration and prediction data sets
| Item | Calibration set | Prediction set | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Mean | SD | Range | N | Mean | SD | Range | |
| RID IgG | 133 | 1117 | 864 | 2975 | 67 | 1132 | 876 | 2977 |
N Number of samples in the calibration and prediction sets, SD standard deviation (mg/dL), range Difference (highest minus lowest) of IgG concentration (mg/dL)
Fig. 1A representive raw spectrum of a bovine serum sample over the spectral range of 4000 – 650 cm−1 obtained by attunuated total reflectance infrared spectroscopy
Comparison of calibration models and prediction results of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentration of 200 bovine serum samples, obtained using different pre-processing approaches for infrared spectra
| Calibration ( | Prediction ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-processing | PLS factors | RMMCCV (mg/dL) |
| RMSEC (mg/dL) |
| RMSEP (mg/dL) | RPD | RER |
| Smoothing (9 points) | 14 | 335 | 0.97 | 364 | 0.92 | 340 | 2.6 | 8.8 |
| Smoothing + normalization (SNV) | 14 | 332 | 0.97 | 359 | 0.93 | 326 | 2.7 | 9.1 |
| Smoothing + vector normalization | 14 | 336 | .097 | 367 | 0.93 | 331 | 2.7 | 9 |
| 1st derivatives (9 points) | 6 | 341 | 0.95 | 370 | 0.91 | 373 | 2.4 | 8 |
| 1st derivatives + normalization (SNV) | 6 | 338 | 0.95 | 355 | 0.91 | 362 | 2.4 | 8.2 |
| 1st derivatives + vector normalization | 6 | 340 | 0.96 | 357 | 0.91 | 362 | 2.4 | 8.2 |
| 2nd derivatives (9 points) | 5 | 363 | 0.97 | 382 | 0.88 | 424 | 2.1 | 7 |
| 2nd derivatives + normalization (SNV) | 5 | 358 | 0.97 | 376 | 0.87 | 429 | 2 | 7 |
| 2nd derivatives + Vector normalization | 6 | 356 | 0.97 | 376 | 0.89 | 409 | 2.1 | 7.3 |
PLS, Partial least squares, RMMCCV Root mean squared error of the Monte Carlo cross validation value, r Pearson correlation coefficient, RMSEC Root mean squared error of calibration;, RMSEP Root mean squared error of prediction, RPD (ratio of predictive deviation), SD divided by RMSEP, RER (range error ratio), Range divided by RMSEP; SNV Standard normal variate
Fig. 2Plots of RMMCCV and RMSEC for the calibration (n = 133) data set, and RMSEP for the prediction (n = 67) data set. The optimum number of PLS factors was determined to be 14, based on the lowest RMMCCV. RMMCCV: Root mean squared error in the Monte Carlo cross validation value; RMSEC: Root mean squared error of calibration; RMSEP: Root mean squared error of prediction; PLS: Partial least squares
Fig. 3Scatter plots comparing immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentrations measured by the radial immunodiffusion (RID) assay to those predicated by the ATR-based assay for 200 bovine serum samples. The correlation coefficients (r) were 0.97 and 0.93 for the calibration and prediction data sets, respectively. The squares denote the samples from the calibration set and the circles indicate the samples from the prediction set. The two assays are considered comparable if data points distribute closely about the reference line
Fig. 4Bland–Altman plot. The average immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentrations measured by radial immunodiffusion (RID) and ATR methods (x-axis) against the difference in IgG concentrations between the two methods (y-axis) for the prediction set samples (n = 67). The dashed lines represent the 95 % confidence limits of agreement (–670 to 611 mg/dL) and the solid line represents the mean difference between ATR and RID assays (-30 mg/dL), indicating no appreciable systematic difference between the two methods
Fig. 5Adjusted coefficient of variance (CV*) plots for (a) the radial immunodiffusion (RID) method and (b) the ATR-based method for the prediction (n = 67) data set. The dashed line represents the mean CV* for RID assay (0.086, or 8.6 %) and ATR (0.2, or 20 %)
Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ATR-based IgG assay as a diagnostic test method to determine failure of transfer of passive immunity (FTPI) in the prediction (n = 67) and entire (n = 200) data sets
| Data sets | Test characteristics | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | True positives | False positives | True negatives | False negatives | Se | Sp | Accuracy | |
| Prediction | 67 | 30 | 0 | 33 | 4 | 88 % | 100 % | 94 % |
| All data | 200 | 94 | 0 | 98 | 8 | 92 % | 100 % | 96 % |
N Number of samples, Se Sensitivity; Sp Specificity