Ming Zhang1, Maya R Sternberg1, Christine M Pfeiffer1. 1. Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
Background: Harmonizing critical reagents for the folate microbiological assay (MBA) may improve among-laboratory comparability. Objective: We assessed the comparability of the MBA for serum folate (S-FOL) and whole-blood folate (WB-FOL) in an international comparison study. Methods: Eight laboratories obtained a kit containing CDC microorganism inoculum (chloramphenicol-resistant Lactobacillus rhamnosus), CDC calibrator (5-methyltetrahydrofolate), and 23 serum and WB hemolysate samples each. Laboratories analyzed the samples in single measurement over 2 d using 4 conditions: in-house microorganism and in-house calibrator (IH-MO & IH-CAL), in-house microorganism and CDC calibrator (IH-MO & CDC-CAL), CDC microorganism and in-house calibrator (CDC-MO & IH-CAL), and CDC microorganism and CDC calibrator (CDC-MO & CDC-CAL). We calculated geometric mean concentrations for each laboratory and condition and compared data to the CDC MBA (target). Results: The among-laboratory arithmetic mean S-FOL concentrations for the 4 conditions were 30.2, 28.1, 30.0, and 29.9 (group 1, 5-methyltetrahydrofolate IH-CAL) compared with 35.3, 33.3, 33.6, and 30.7 nmol/L (group 2, folic acid IH-CAL), respectively; and 428, 405, 398, and 393 (group 1) compared with 469, 423, 477, and 418 nmol/L (group 2), respectively, for WB-FOL. Differences to the CDC MBA target values were smaller for group 1 (range across conditions; S-FOL: 9.9-21%; WB-FOL: 9.0-18%) compared with group 2 laboratories (S-FOL: 13-30%; WB-FOL: 16-32%) and smaller when CDC reagents were used compared with in-house reagents (S-FOL: 12% compared with 22%; WB-FOL: 13% compared with 25%). A linear mixed model estimated a small microorganism effect (S-FOL: 2.3%; WB-FOL: 2.3%) and a larger mean calibrator effect; folic acid compared with 5-methyltetrahydrofolate calibrator produced 12% higher S-FOL and 15% higher WB-FOL results. When laboratories used CDC reagents, the estimated among-laboratory variability was ∼10% for S-FOL and WB-FOL. Conclusion: Harmonizing the calibrator and microorganism for the folate MBA has the potential to improve the among-laboratory comparability in future surveys.
Background: Harmonizing critical reagents for the folate microbiological assay (MBA) may improve among-laboratory comparability. Objective: We assessed the comparability of the MBA for serum folate (S-FOL) and whole-blood folate (WB-FOL) in an international comparison study. Methods: Eight laboratories obtained a kit containing CDC microorganism inoculum (chloramphenicol-resistant Lactobacillus rhamnosus), CDC calibrator (5-methyltetrahydrofolate), and 23 serum and WB hemolysate samples each. Laboratories analyzed the samples in single measurement over 2 d using 4 conditions: in-house microorganism and in-house calibrator (IH-MO & IH-CAL), in-house microorganism and CDC calibrator (IH-MO & CDC-CAL), CDC microorganism and in-house calibrator (CDC-MO & IH-CAL), and CDC microorganism and CDC calibrator (CDC-MO & CDC-CAL). We calculated geometric mean concentrations for each laboratory and condition and compared data to the CDC MBA (target). Results: The among-laboratory arithmetic mean S-FOL concentrations for the 4 conditions were 30.2, 28.1, 30.0, and 29.9 (group 1, 5-methyltetrahydrofolateIH-CAL) compared with 35.3, 33.3, 33.6, and 30.7 nmol/L (group 2, folic acidIH-CAL), respectively; and 428, 405, 398, and 393 (group 1) compared with 469, 423, 477, and 418 nmol/L (group 2), respectively, for WB-FOL. Differences to the CDC MBA target values were smaller for group 1 (range across conditions; S-FOL: 9.9-21%; WB-FOL: 9.0-18%) compared with group 2 laboratories (S-FOL: 13-30%; WB-FOL: 16-32%) and smaller when CDC reagents were used compared with in-house reagents (S-FOL: 12% compared with 22%; WB-FOL: 13% compared with 25%). A linear mixed model estimated a small microorganism effect (S-FOL: 2.3%; WB-FOL: 2.3%) and a larger mean calibrator effect; folic acid compared with 5-methyltetrahydrofolate calibrator produced 12% higher S-FOL and 15% higher WB-FOL results. When laboratories used CDC reagents, the estimated among-laboratory variability was ∼10% for S-FOL and WB-FOL. Conclusion: Harmonizing the calibrator and microorganism for the folate MBA has the potential to improve the among-laboratory comparability in future surveys.
Authors: Kaitlyn L I Samson; Su Peng Loh; Geok Lin Khor; Zalilah Mohd Shariff; Lisa N Yelland; Shalem Leemaqz; Maria Makrides; Jennifer A Hutcheon; Dian C Sulistyoningrum; Jessica J Yu; Marion L Roche; Luz Maria De-Regil; Tim J Green; Crystal D Karakochuk Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Shannon E Hunt; Merryn J Netting; Thomas R Sullivan; Karen P Best; Lisa A Houghton; Maria Makrides; Beverly S Muhlhausler; Tim J Green Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Kaitlyn L I Samson; Su Peng Loh; Siew Siew Lee; Dian C Sulistyoningrum; Geok Lin Khor; Zalilah Binti Mohd Shariff; Irmi Zarina Ismai; Lisa N Yelland; Shalem Leemaqz; Maria Makrides; Jennifer A Hutcheon; Marion L Roche; Crystal D Karakochuk; Timothy J Green Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2020-12
Authors: Dian Sulistyoningrum; Tim Green; Debbie Palmer; Thomas Sullivan; Simon Wood; Maria Makrides; Monika Skubisz; Karen P Best Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 2.692