Show simple item record

Comparison of serum, EDTA plasma and P100 plasma for luminex-based biomarker multiplex assays in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the SPIROMICS study

dc.contributor.authorO’Neal, Wanda K
dc.contributor.authorAnderson, Wayne
dc.contributor.authorBasta, Patricia V
dc.contributor.authorCarretta, Elizabeth E
dc.contributor.authorDoerschuk, Claire M
dc.contributor.authorBarr, R G
dc.contributor.authorBleecker, Eugene R
dc.contributor.authorChristenson, Stephanie A
dc.contributor.authorCurtis, Jeffrey L
dc.contributor.authorHan, Meilan K
dc.contributor.authorHansel, Nadia N
dc.contributor.authorKanner, Richard E
dc.contributor.authorKleerup, Eric C
dc.contributor.authorMartinez, Fernando J
dc.contributor.authorMiller, Bruce E
dc.contributor.authorPeters, Stephen P
dc.contributor.authorRennard, Stephen I
dc.contributor.authorScholand, Mary B
dc.contributor.authorTal-Singer, Ruth
dc.contributor.authorWoodruff, Prescott G
dc.contributor.authorCouper, David J
dc.contributor.authorDavis, Sonia M
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-02T18:01:23Z
dc.date.available2015-05-02T18:01:23Z
dc.date.issued2014-01-08
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Translational Medicine. 2014 Jan 08;12(1):9
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/111060en_US
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background As a part of the longitudinal Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) study, Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD study (SPIROMICS), blood samples are being collected from 3200 subjects with the goal of identifying blood biomarkers for sub-phenotyping patients and predicting disease progression. To determine the most reliable sample type for measuring specific blood analytes in the cohort, a pilot study was performed from a subset of 24 subjects comparing serum, Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) plasma, and EDTA plasma with proteinase inhibitors (P100™). Methods 105 analytes, chosen for potential relevance to COPD, arranged in 12 multiplex and one simplex platform (Myriad-RBM) were evaluated in duplicate from the three sample types from 24 subjects. The reliability coefficient and the coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated. The performance of each analyte and mean analyte levels were evaluated across sample types. Results 20% of analytes were not consistently detectable in any sample type. Higher reliability and/or smaller CV were determined for 12 analytes in EDTA plasma compared to serum, and for 11 analytes in serum compared to EDTA plasma. While reliability measures were similar for EDTA plasma and P100 plasma for a majority of analytes, CV was modestly increased in P100 plasma for eight analytes. Each analyte within a multiplex produced independent measurement characteristics, complicating selection of sample type for individual multiplexes. Conclusions There were notable detectability and measurability differences between serum and plasma. Multiplexing may not be ideal if large reliability differences exist across analytes measured within the multiplex, especially if values differ based on sample type. For some analytes, the large CV should be considered during experimental design, and the use of duplicate and/or triplicate samples may be necessary. These results should prove useful for studies evaluating selection of samples for evaluation of potential blood biomarkers.
dc.titleComparison of serum, EDTA plasma and P100 plasma for luminex-based biomarker multiplex assays in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the SPIROMICS study
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/111060/1/12967_2013_Article_2096.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1479-5876-12-9en_US
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderO'Neal et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
dc.date.updated2015-05-02T18:01:27Z
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.