Literature DB >> 9543143

How much insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) circulates? Impact of standardization on IGF-I assay accuracy.

V Quarmby1, C Quan, V Ling, P Compton, E Canova-Davis.   

Abstract

There is a significant systematic difference between the normal range obtained from ethylenediamine tetraacetate plasma samples using the Genentech total insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) RIA and normal ranges for other total IGF-I RIAs. To determine whether the quality of the assay standard was the cause of this systematic difference, we analyzed commercially available preparations of recombinant human IGF-I (rhIGF-I) typical of those used as IGF-I immunoassay standards along with our own well characterized rhIGF-I assay standard. For the commercial standards, high performance liquid chromatography-derived purities were low, and some vendor-assigned protein concentrations were inconsistent with values from quantitative amino acid analysis. The Genentech rhIGF-I assay standard was highly pure and quantitatively correct. However, the poor quality of some commercial rhIGF-I preparations was not the primary reason for the systematic discrepancy between the Genentech total IGF-I RIA normal range and most other normal ranges. Most assays for total IGF-I are calibrated against the WHO International Reference Reagent (IRR) for IGF-I Immunoassays (87/518). The Genentech total IGF-I RIA is not calibrated against WHO IRR 87/518. The protein content assigned to WHO IRR 87/518 was a consensus value from a multicenter collaborative study. Physicochemical analyses showed that WHO IRR 87/518 is Met(-1)-IGF-I of low purity (44%), and that the assigned protein content is higher than the value determined by quantitative amino acid analysis. Thus, assays that are calibrated against WHO IRR 87/518 will report total IGF-I concentrations in excess of actual values. We believe that calibration against WHO IRR 87/518 is the cause of the systematic discrepancy between the Genentech IGF-I assay normal range and most other normal ranges, and that much of the plasma IGF-I concentration data in the literature are of questionable accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9543143     DOI: 10.1210/jcem.83.4.4727

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab        ISSN: 0021-972X            Impact factor:   5.958


  5 in total

1.  Epidemiologic survey: reference ranges of serum insulin-like growth factor 1 levels in Caucasian adult population with immunoradiometric assay.

Authors:  Fahri Bayram; Vedia Tonyukuk Gedik; Özgür Demir; Ahmet Kaya; Kürşat Gündoğan; Rıfat Emral; Ahmet Öztürk; Ali Rıza Uysal; Demet Çorapçıoğlu
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 3.633

Review 2.  Circulating free insulin-like growth-factor-I (IGF-I) levels should also be measured to estimate the IGF-I bioactivity.

Authors:  J A M J L Janssen; A J van der Lely; S W J Lamberts
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.256

3.  Reference Values for IGF-I Serum Concentrations: Comparison of Six Immunoassays.

Authors:  Philippe Chanson; Armelle Arnoux; Maria Mavromati; Sylvie Brailly-Tabard; Catherine Massart; Jacques Young; Marie-Liesse Piketty; Jean-Claude Souberbielle
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 4.  Procollagen type III amino-terminal propeptide and insulin-like growth factor I as biomarkers of growth hormone administration.

Authors:  David A Cowan; Danielle A Moncrieffe
Journal:  Drug Test Anal       Date:  2021-09-06       Impact factor: 3.234

Review 5.  IGF-I assays: current assay methodologies and their limitations.

Authors:  David R Clemmons
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.599

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.