Gerard S K, Chen K H, Khayam-Bashi H
Am J Clin Pathol. 1987 Aug;88(2):198-203. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/88.2.198.
The authors prospectively compared immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) with immunoelectrophoresis (IEP) for the evaluation of paraproteins in 32 patient specimens. They used a simple modification of their existing agarose protein electrophoresis system for IFE. Thirteen specimens (40%) required IFE for paraprotein identification, 18 (56%) were definitive by either method, and 1 (3%) did not show a paraprotein by either method. Low titer and/or avidity with anti-lambda antibody from three of seven suppliers prevented or complicated interpretation of IEP patterns with two of four known lambda paraprotein-containing specimens but had no such effect with IFE. In view of these and various additional technical considerations, the authors suggest IFE for the routine characterization of paraproteins in the serum or urine.
作者前瞻性地比较了免疫固定电泳(IFE)和免疫电泳(IEP)在评估32份患者标本中副蛋白的情况。他们对现有的琼脂糖蛋白电泳系统进行了简单改进以用于IFE。13份标本(40%)需要IFE来鉴定副蛋白,18份标本(56%)用两种方法中的任何一种都能明确,1份标本(3%)两种方法均未显示有副蛋白。来自七个供应商中的三个的抗λ抗体效价低和/或亲和力低,妨碍了对四个已知含λ副蛋白标本中的两个进行IEP图谱的解读或使其变得复杂,但对IFE没有这种影响。鉴于这些以及各种其他技术方面的考虑,作者建议将IFE用于血清或尿液中副蛋白的常规鉴定。