Cargando…

Comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin

BACKGROUND: Exact analysis of equine insulin in blood samples is the key element for assessing insulin resistance or insulin dysregulation in horses. However, previous studies indicated marked differences in insulin concentrations obtained from sample analyses with different immunoassays. Most assay...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Warnken, T., Huber, K., Feige, K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5016943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27613127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0828-z
_version_ 1782452652427182080
author Warnken, T.
Huber, K.
Feige, K.
author_facet Warnken, T.
Huber, K.
Feige, K.
author_sort Warnken, T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Exact analysis of equine insulin in blood samples is the key element for assessing insulin resistance or insulin dysregulation in horses. However, previous studies indicated marked differences in insulin concentrations obtained from sample analyses with different immunoassays. Most assays used in veterinary medicine are originally designed for use in human diagnostics and are based on antibodies directed against human insulin, although amino acid sequences between equine and human insulin differ. Species-specific assays are being used more frequently and seem to provide advantages compared to human-specific assays. The aim of this study was to compare three immunoassays, one porcine-specific insulin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), advertised to be specific for equine insulin, one porcine-specific insulin radioimmunoassay (RIA) and one human-specific insulin chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), all three widely used in veterinary laboratories for the analysis of equine insulin. Furthermore, we tested their clinical applicability in assessing insulin resistance and dysregulation by analysis of basal blood and blood samples obtained during a dynamic diagnostic stimulation test (OGT) with elevated insulin concentrations. RESULTS: Insulin values obtained from the ELISA, RIA and CLIA, investigated for analyses of basal blood samples differed significantly between all three assays. Analyses of samples obtained during dynamic diagnostic stimulation testing with consecutively higher insulin concentrations revealed significantly (p < 0.001) lower insulin concentrations supplied by the CLIA compared to the ELISA. However, values measured by ELISA were intermediate and not different to those measured by RIA. Calculated recovery upon dilution, as a marker for assay accuracy in diluted samples, was 98 ± 4 % for ELISA, 160 ± 41 % for RIA and 101 ± 11 % for CLIA. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that insulin concentrations of one sample measured by different methods vary greatly and should be interpreted carefully. Consideration of the immunoassay method and reliable assay-specific reference ranges are of particular importance especially in clinical cases where small changes in insulin levels can cause false classification in terms of insulin sensitivity of horses and ponies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5016943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50169432016-09-10 Comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin Warnken, T. Huber, K. Feige, K. BMC Vet Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Exact analysis of equine insulin in blood samples is the key element for assessing insulin resistance or insulin dysregulation in horses. However, previous studies indicated marked differences in insulin concentrations obtained from sample analyses with different immunoassays. Most assays used in veterinary medicine are originally designed for use in human diagnostics and are based on antibodies directed against human insulin, although amino acid sequences between equine and human insulin differ. Species-specific assays are being used more frequently and seem to provide advantages compared to human-specific assays. The aim of this study was to compare three immunoassays, one porcine-specific insulin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), advertised to be specific for equine insulin, one porcine-specific insulin radioimmunoassay (RIA) and one human-specific insulin chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), all three widely used in veterinary laboratories for the analysis of equine insulin. Furthermore, we tested their clinical applicability in assessing insulin resistance and dysregulation by analysis of basal blood and blood samples obtained during a dynamic diagnostic stimulation test (OGT) with elevated insulin concentrations. RESULTS: Insulin values obtained from the ELISA, RIA and CLIA, investigated for analyses of basal blood samples differed significantly between all three assays. Analyses of samples obtained during dynamic diagnostic stimulation testing with consecutively higher insulin concentrations revealed significantly (p < 0.001) lower insulin concentrations supplied by the CLIA compared to the ELISA. However, values measured by ELISA were intermediate and not different to those measured by RIA. Calculated recovery upon dilution, as a marker for assay accuracy in diluted samples, was 98 ± 4 % for ELISA, 160 ± 41 % for RIA and 101 ± 11 % for CLIA. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that insulin concentrations of one sample measured by different methods vary greatly and should be interpreted carefully. Consideration of the immunoassay method and reliable assay-specific reference ranges are of particular importance especially in clinical cases where small changes in insulin levels can cause false classification in terms of insulin sensitivity of horses and ponies. BioMed Central 2016-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5016943/ /pubmed/27613127 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0828-z Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Warnken, T.
Huber, K.
Feige, K.
Comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin
title Comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin
title_full Comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin
title_fullStr Comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin
title_short Comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin
title_sort comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5016943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27613127
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0828-z
work_keys_str_mv AT warnkent comparisonofthreedifferentmethodsforthequantificationofequineinsulin
AT huberk comparisonofthreedifferentmethodsforthequantificationofequineinsulin
AT feigek comparisonofthreedifferentmethodsforthequantificationofequineinsulin