Andre Valcour1, Claudia Zierold2, Angela L Podgorski2, Gregory T Olson2, John V Wall2, Hector F DeLuca3, Fabrizio Bonelli2. 1. Center for Esoteric Testing, Laboratory Corporation of America(®) Holdings, Burlington, NC 27215, United States. Electronic address: ValcouA@labcorp.com. 2. DiaSorin Inc, 1951 Northwestern Avenue, Stillwater, MN 55082, United States. 3. Department of Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25-(OH)2D), the hormonal form of vitamin D, is difficult to measure because of its low circulating levels (pg/mL), and similarity to more abundant metabolites. Here a fully-automated chemiluminescent assay that accurately and precisely measures 1,25-(OH)2D is described. METHOD: The novel 1,25-(OH)2D assay was conceived based on four pillars: (1) the VDR's ligand binding domain (LBD) as a capture molecule; (2) reaction conditions wherein 1,25-(OH)2D favors binding to LBD vs. the vitamin D binding protein; (3) exploitation of liganded-LBD's conformational change; (4) a monoclonal antibody specific to liganded-LBD. This specific, conformational, sandwich approach, unique for automated measurement of haptens, is superior to more cumbersome, conventional competitive formats. RESULTS: Accuracy of the 1,25-(OH)2D assay was corroborated by its alignment against LC-MS/MS with fit Deming regression equations of y=0.98x + 1.93 (r=0.92), and y=1.07x+3.77 (r=0.94) for different methods from Endocrine Sciences, Laboratory Corporation of America® and the University of Washington, respectively. Good analytical precision was manifested by its low estimated limit of quantitation (1.57pg/mL), average intra-assay imprecision (3.5%CV; range 1.1-4.7%), and average inter-assay imprecision (4.5%CV; range 3.4-7.2%). Expected and measured recovery values were congruent (93.4% mean). CONCLUSIONS: The novel 1,25-(OH)2D method exhibited excellent correlation with well validated LC-MS/MS assays from two laboratories. Significantly, its 65min turn-around time is quicker, and sample volume smaller (75μl) than current methods.
BACKGROUND:1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25-(OH)2D), the hormonal form of vitamin D, is difficult to measure because of its low circulating levels (pg/mL), and similarity to more abundant metabolites. Here a fully-automated chemiluminescent assay that accurately and precisely measures 1,25-(OH)2D is described. METHOD: The novel 1,25-(OH)2D assay was conceived based on four pillars: (1) the VDR's ligand binding domain (LBD) as a capture molecule; (2) reaction conditions wherein 1,25-(OH)2D favors binding to LBD vs. the vitamin D binding protein; (3) exploitation of liganded-LBD's conformational change; (4) a monoclonal antibody specific to liganded-LBD. This specific, conformational, sandwich approach, unique for automated measurement of haptens, is superior to more cumbersome, conventional competitive formats. RESULTS: Accuracy of the 1,25-(OH)2D assay was corroborated by its alignment against LC-MS/MS with fit Deming regression equations of y=0.98x + 1.93 (r=0.92), and y=1.07x+3.77 (r=0.94) for different methods from Endocrine Sciences, Laboratory Corporation of America® and the University of Washington, respectively. Good analytical precision was manifested by its low estimated limit of quantitation (1.57pg/mL), average intra-assay imprecision (3.5%CV; range 1.1-4.7%), and average inter-assay imprecision (4.5%CV; range 3.4-7.2%). Expected and measured recovery values were congruent (93.4% mean). CONCLUSIONS: The novel 1,25-(OH)2D method exhibited excellent correlation with well validated LC-MS/MS assays from two laboratories. Significantly, its 65min turn-around time is quicker, and sample volume smaller (75μl) than current methods.
Authors: Martin P Playford; Amit K Dey; Claudia Zierold; Aditya A Joshi; Frank Blocki; Fabrizio Bonelli; Justin A Rodante; Charlotte L Harrington; Joshua P Rivers; Youssef A Elnabawi; Marcus Y Chen; Mark A Ahlman; Heather L Teague; Nehal N Mehta Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2019-08-17 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Konstantinos Makris; Harjit P Bhattoa; Etienne Cavalier; Karen Phinney; Christopher T Sempos; Candice Z Ulmer; Samuel D Vasikaran; Hubert Vesper; Annemieke C Heijboer Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 6.314
Authors: Stephanie A Bora; Mary J Kennett; Philip B Smith; Andrew D Patterson; Margherita T Cantorna Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Niek F Dirks; Mariëtte T Ackermans; Paul Lips; Renate T de Jongh; Marc G Vervloet; Robert de Jonge; Annemieke C Heijboer Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Armin Zittermann; Jana B Ernst; Tobias Becker; Jens Dreier; Cornelius Knabbe; Jan F Gummert; Joachim Kuhn Journal: Int J Anal Chem Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 1.885