Reiter E O, Morris A H, MacGillivray M H, Weber D
Department of Pediatrics, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts 01199.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1988 Jan;66(1):68-71. doi: 10.1210/jcem-66-1-68.
Many different assays are being used to measure serum GH concentrations in children with disorders of growth. We assessed four readily available methods to determine the comparability of the immunopotency estimates: standard double antibody RIA with pituitary standards from the National Hormone and Pituitary Program (assay 1) and from a commercial source (assay 2), a double antibody RIA with serum standards (assay 4), and a commercial immunoradiometric assay (assay 3). There was a high degree of relative correlation between assays (r = 0.95-0.98), but absolute potency estimates differed. Assays 1 and 2 were almost identical. Assay 3 yielded serum GH levels about 65% those of assay 1 or 2 and 80% those of assay 4. Assay 4 gave intermediate values between the low readings in assay 3 and higher values in assay 1 and 2. We conclude that substantial variation occurs in potency estimates in different GH assays. Such differences can affect the interpretation of many GH provocative and sampling studies.
许多不同的检测方法被用于测量生长障碍儿童的血清生长激素(GH)浓度。我们评估了四种易于获得的方法,以确定免疫效价估计值的可比性:使用来自国家激素和垂体项目的垂体标准品的标准双抗体放射免疫分析(检测方法1)和来自商业来源的垂体标准品的标准双抗体放射免疫分析(检测方法2)、使用血清标准品的双抗体放射免疫分析(检测方法4)以及一种商业免疫放射分析(检测方法3)。各检测方法之间存在高度的相对相关性(r = 0.95 - 0.98),但绝对效价估计值有所不同。检测方法1和检测方法2几乎相同。检测方法3得出的血清GH水平约为检测方法1或检测方法2的65%,为检测方法4的80%。检测方法4得出的值介于检测方法3的低读数与检测方法1和检测方法2的高读数之间。我们得出结论,不同GH检测方法的效价估计值存在很大差异。这种差异会影响许多GH激发试验和采样研究的解释。