Durrington P N, Whicher J T, Warren C, Bolton C H, Hartog M
Clin Chim Acta. 1976 Aug 16;71(1):95-108. doi: 10.1016/0009-8981(76)90280-1.
Three assays for serum apolipoprotein B, radioimmunoassay, automated immunoprecipitation and rocket immunoelectrophoresis were compared. The antiserum used was raised against lipoprotein of density 1.040-1.053 g/ml (lipoprotein B). Each of the methods had a high degree of specificity when tested against potential interfering substances. The lowest levels of apolipoprotein B could be measured with radioimmunoassay but this sensitivity entailed the use of high dilutions of serum and resulted in a lower precision. Concentration response curves of lipoprotein B solution and serum were parallel for radioimmunoassay and automated immunoprecipitation but were not for rocket immunoelectrophoresis. Serum apolipoprotein B could be assayed by immunoelectrophoresis, however, if serum calibrated against the protein concentration of lipoprotein B solution by either of the other two methods was used as a secondary standard. Such a secondary serum standard also proved advantageous for all the methods because of the relative stability of the apolipoprotein B content of serum as compared to aqueous solutions of lipoprotein B. The mean apolipoprotein B concentration in 29 normolipaemic subjects aged 20-30 years was 0.84 +/- 0.12 g/1 (mean +/- S.D.) by radioimmunoassay, 0.85 +/- 0.11 g/1 by automated immunoprecipitation and 0.88 +/- 0.11 g/1 by rocket immunoelectrophoresis. The correlation between apolipoprotein B levels measured by the three methods was good. The ratio of serum cholesterol to serum apolipoprotein B was unaffected by individual differences in serum cholesterol or triglyceride levels. There was no significant difference between fasting and post-prandial serum apolipoprotein B concentrations. Radioimmunoassay is particularly suited to the measurement of low levels of apolipoprotein B, automated immunoprecipitation for large numbers of samples and rocket immunoelectrophoresis, when care is taken in the interpretation of results, for small numbers of samples.
对血清载脂蛋白B的三种检测方法,即放射免疫测定法、自动免疫沉淀法和火箭免疫电泳法进行了比较。所用抗血清是针对密度为1.040 - 1.053 g/ml的脂蛋白(脂蛋白B)制备的。当针对潜在干扰物质进行检测时,每种方法都具有高度特异性。放射免疫测定法能够检测到最低水平的载脂蛋白B,但这种敏感性需要使用高稀释度的血清,导致精密度较低。脂蛋白B溶液和血清的浓度反应曲线在放射免疫测定法和自动免疫沉淀法中是平行的,但在火箭免疫电泳法中则不是。然而,如果使用通过其他两种方法之一根据脂蛋白B溶液的蛋白质浓度校准的血清作为二级标准,则可以通过免疫电泳法测定血清载脂蛋白B。由于与脂蛋白B水溶液相比,血清中载脂蛋白B含量相对稳定,这种二级血清标准对所有方法也都证明是有利的。通过放射免疫测定法,29名年龄在20 - 30岁的血脂正常受试者的平均载脂蛋白B浓度为0.84±0.12 g/1(平均值±标准差),自动免疫沉淀法为0.85±0.11 g/1,火箭免疫电泳法为0.88±0.11 g/1。三种方法测得的载脂蛋白B水平之间的相关性良好。血清胆固醇与血清载脂蛋白B的比值不受血清胆固醇或甘油三酯水平个体差异影响。空腹和餐后血清载脂蛋白B浓度之间无显著差异。放射免疫测定法特别适合于低水平载脂蛋白B的测量,自动免疫沉淀法适合大量样本的检测,而火箭免疫电泳法在谨慎解释结果时适合少量样本的检测。