| Literature DB >> 32077157 |
Ming Chen1, Liang Wang2, Yigang Wang1, Xiumei Zhou1, Xinyuan Liu1, Hao Chen1, Biao Huang1, Zhigang Hu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop a time-resolved fluorescence immunoassay (TRFIA) for detecting soluble T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 3 (sTim3) in serum samples and to demonstrate a preliminary application of this method in membranous nephropathy (MN).Entities:
Keywords: membranous nephropathy; soluble Tim3; time-resolved fluorescence immunoassay
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32077157 PMCID: PMC7307342 DOI: 10.1002/jcla.23248
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Lab Anal ISSN: 0887-8013 Impact factor: 2.352
Figure 1Standard curve of Tim3 (P < .001). CPS (counts per second)
Precision of the time‐resolved fluorescence immunoassay
| Concentration | Average (ng/ml) | Standard deviation | CV (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inter‐assay (n = 10) | Low | 6.95 | 0.62 | 8.95 |
| Medium | 22.52 | 1.29 | 5.72 | |
| High | 51.68 | 4.81 | 9.32 | |
| Intra‐assay (n = 10) | Low | 7.27 | 0.34 | 4.68 |
| Medium | 21.95 | 0.67 | 3.05 | |
| High | 49.30 | 0.81 | 1.64 |
Cross‐reactivities of the time‐resolved fluorescence immunoassay (n = 10)
| Interferent (ng/ml) | Concentration (ng/ml) | Determined (ng/ml) | Cross‐reactivity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tim3 | 20.00 | 20.32 | 101.62 |
| IL‐6 | 200.00 | 0.49 | 0.25 |
| KIM‐1 | 1000.00 | 0.43 | 0.04 |
Recoveries of the time‐resolved fluorescence immunoassay (n = 3)
| Samples | Theoretical concentration (ng/ml) | Measured (ng/ml) | Recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20.62 | 22.02 | 106.79 |
| 32.86 | 36.23 | 110.26 | |
| 65.08 | 65.03 | 99.92 | |
| 2 | 20.62 | 23.62 | 114.55 |
| 32.86 | 38.03 | 115.73 | |
| 65.08 | 60.65 | 93.19 | |
| 3 | 20.62 | 20.03 | 97.14 |
| 32.86 | 34.67 | 105.51 | |
| 65.08 | 67.82 | 104.21 | |
| Average recovery (%) 105.26 | |||
Figure 2Correlation of sTim3 concentration results between ELISA and the established time‐resolved fluorescence immunoassay (TRFIA)
Comparison of various parameters in different GFR stages of MN (n = 54)
| Parameters | G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | Total | Jonckheere‐Terpstra |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number (male/female) | 20 (8/12) | 20 (12/8) | 11 (11/0) | 3 (2/1) | 54 (33/21) | 0.004 |
| Age (y) | 44.8 ± 10.7 | 59.9 ± 11.0 | 64.5 ± 2.1 | 53 ± 8.5 | 54.9 ± 12.6 | 1.89 × 10‐4 |
| SBP (mm Hg) | 120.4 ± 12.0 | 127.6 ± 20.3 | 132.0 ± 13.6 | 134.0 ± 8.5 | 126.1 ± 16.5 | 0.033 |
| DBP (mm Hg) | 76.2 ± 9.5 | 79.4 ± 11.5 | 82.0 ± 9.8 | 86.0 ± 8.6 | 79.1 ± 10.7 | 0.095 |
| ALB (g/L) | 28.3 ± 5.8 | 26.9 ± 7.3 | 24.1 ± 8.9 | 19.6 ± 6.8 | 26.4 ± 7.5 | 0.052 |
| UREA (mmol/L) | 4.3 ± 1.3 | 7.1 ± 2.0 | 11.0 ± 3.7 | 9.1 ± 2.0 | 7.0 ± 3.4 | 1.34 × 10‐9 |
| CREA (μmol/L) | 58.4 ± 12.5 | 87.4 ± 18.0 | 138.4 ± 17.9 | 253.2 ± 61.1 | 96.2 ± 52.3 | 2.32 × 10‐13 |
| U‐PRO (g/L) | 1.6 ± 1.3 | 2.1 ± 2.1 | 3.3 ± 2.0 | 4.75 ± 0.8 | 2.3 ± 2.0 | 0.012 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 110.5 ± 10.4 | 75.6 ± 10.0 | 47.6 ± 7.4 | 23.2 ± 5.4 | 79.9 ± 28.9 | 3.38 × 10‐15 |
| URIC (μmol/L) | 366.1 ± 58.1 | 400.8 ± 91.6 | 431.4 ± 91.0 | 199.3 ± 54.3 | 383.0 ± 93.7 | 0.461 |
| OSM‐B (mmol/kg) | 280.6 ± 4.2 | 285 ± 3.8 | 286.1 ± 3.7 | 279.7 ± 5.0 | 283.3 ± 4.7 | 0.008 |
| Pla2r‐Ab (RU/mL) | 60.9 ± 75.6 | 151.5 ± 363.3 | 77.8 ± 109.5 | 21.1 ± 26.9 | 95.7 ± 235.5 | 0.680 |
| sTim3 (ng/mL) | 21.4 ± 10.2 | 36.4 ± 23.1 | 49.2 ± 19.3 | 126.9 ± 77.0 | 38.5 ± 34.8 | 6.88 × 10‐6 |
Data were presented as mean ± SD. sTim3 concentration and various clinical parameters in different GFR stages were analyzed by Jonckheere‐Terpstra test. P < .05 was considered significant.
Abbreviations: ALB, albumin; CREA, serum creatinine; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; OSM‐B, osmotic pressure; Pla2r‐Ab, pla2r‐antibody; SBP, systolic blood pressure; sTim3, soluble Tim3; U‐PRO, urinary protein; UREA, urea; URIC, uric acid.
Figure 3sTim3 concentration in different GFR stages of patients with MN (P < .001), Jonckheere‐Terpstra test was used to analyze P value, and P < .05 was considered significant
Figure 4sTim3 concentration in patients with MN (n = 54) and normal control (n = 47, P < .001), t test was used to analyze P value, P < .05 was considered significant
Figure 5ROC analysis on sTim3 in order to distinguish MN from normal control (P < .001). AUC, area under ROC curve; and ROC, receiver operating characteristic
Figure 6ROC for the sTim3 which distinguished G1 from G2, G3 and G4 (P < .001)
Correlation of sTim3 level with other parameters
| Parameters | Correlation coefficient ( |
|
|---|---|---|
| Age | .398 | .003 |
| SBP | .395 | .003 |
| DBP | .179 | .195 |
| ALB | −.672 | <.001 |
| UREA | .444 | <.001 |
| CREA | .509 | <.001 |
| U‐PRO | .718 | <.001 |
| eGFR | −.587 | <.001 |
| URIC | .068 | .624 |
| OSM‐B | .97 × 10‐4 | .997 |
| Pla2r‐Ab | .370 | .006 |
Correlation of sTim3 concentration with other parameters was determined by spearman correlation analysis. P < .05 was considered significant.