On detecting interference from endogenous antibodies in immunoassays by doubling dilutions test

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 45, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 851-854

  Ismail, Adel A A ^a  

^a Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Chemical Endocrinology ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Analytical inaccuracy; Doubling dilutions test; Immunoassay; Interference

Indexed keywords

ANTIBODY;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL LABORATORY; COMPREHENSION; DILUTION; HUMAN; IMMUNOASSAY; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCATCHARD PLOT;

ANTIBODIES; ANTIBODY AFFINITY; HUMANS; IMMUNOASSAY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34447283257     PISSN: 14346621     EISSN: 14374331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2007.152     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ismail AA, Walker PL, Barth JH, Lewandowski C, Jones R, Burr WA. Wrong biochemistry results: two case reports and observational study on 5310 patients on potentially misleading thyroid-stimulating hormone and gonadotropin immunoassay results. Clin Chem 2002;48:2023-9.
2. Bjerner J, Nustad K, Norum LF, Olsen KH, Bomer OP. Immunometric assay interference: incidence and prevention. Clin Chem 2002;48:613-21.
3. Levinson SS, Miller JJ. Towards a better understanding of heterophile (and the like) antibody interference with modern immunoassays. Clin Chim Acta 2002;325:1-15.
4. Ismail Y, Ismail AA, Ismail AAA. Erroneous laboratory results; what clinicians need to know: clinicians should know that some common laboratory tests are analytically more prone to errors than others. Clin Med 2007. In press.
5. Ismail AA. On the interpretation of affirmative follow up tests in immunoassays: what must not be done? Ann Clin Biochem 2006;43:249-51.
6. Ismail AA, Walker PL, Cawood ML, Barth JH. Interference in immunoassay is an underestimated problem. Ann Clin Biochem 2002;39:366-73.
7. Covensky M, Laterza O, Pfeifer JD, Farkas-Stallasi T, Scott MG. An IgM antibody to Escherichia coli produces false positive results in multiple immunometric assays. Clin Chem 2002;46:1157-61.
8. Weir DM, Stewart J. Antigens and antigen recognition. In: Weir DM, Stewart J, editors. Immunology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1997:69.
9. Kramer A, Keitel T, Winkler K, Stocklein W, Hohne W, Schneider-Mergener J. Molecular basis for the binding promiscuity of an anti-p24 (HIV-1) monoclonal antibody. Cell 1997;91:799-809.
10. Pan Y, Yuhasz SC, Amzel LM. Anti-idiotypic antibodies: biological function and structural studies. Exp Biol Med J 1995;9:43-9.
11. Fields BA, Goldbaum FA, Ysem X, Poljak RJ, Mariuzza RA. Molecular basis of antigen mimicry by anti-idiotope. Nature 1995;374:739-42.
12. Voss EW Jr. Significance and properties of the autoantimetatype immune response. Mol Immunol 1993;30:949-51.
13. Wingren C, Hansson UB, Magnusson CG, Ohlin M. Antigen-binding sites dominate the surface properties of IgG antibodies. Mol Immunol 1995;32:819-27.
14. Braden BC, Poljak RJ. Structural features of the reactions between antibodies and protein antigens. FASEB J 1995;9:9-16.
15. Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine; the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 1983;32:307-17.
16. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
17. Scatchard G. The attraction of proteins for small molecules and ions. Ann NY Acad Sci 1949;51:660-72.
18. Walker WH. An approach to immunoassay. Clin Chem 1977;23:334-402.
19. Rodbard D, Feldman HA. Theorem of protein ligand interaction. Methods Enzymol 1975;36:3-16.
20. Holleman HJ, Bertina RM. Scatchard plot and heterogeneity in binding affinity of labeled and unlabelled ligand. Clin Chem 1975;21:1769-73.
21. Leape LL. Striving for perfection. Clin Chem 2002;48:1871-2.