Serviço de Patologia Clínica, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal.
Serviço de Patologia Clínica, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal.
J Immunol Methods. 2024 Sep;532:113725. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2024.113725. Epub 2024 Jul 10.
Interest in measuring immunoglobulin G Subclasses (IgG Subclasses) is increasing as more information is gathered and understanding regarding conditions associated with deficiencies of each IgG Subclass grows. Different methodologies are available for the measurement of IgG Subclasses, but their specificities vary. As a result, laboratories choose the methodology that better suits their routine, but which may not necessarily align with the needs of their population. In addition, the lack of standardization for the quantification of IgG Subclasses causes diagnostic gaps when comparing results provided by different methodologies. Thus, the purpose of our research is to compare the analytical performance of The Binding Site's (TBS) Optilite® human Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgG Subclasses Immunoturbidimetry assay, with the Nephelometry method routinely used in our clinical laboratory, Siemens BNII®. Our results show that the Immunoturbidimetry assay appears to be the most reliable to evaluate IgG Subclasses: the sum of IgG Subclasses and Total IgG correlate better than by Nephelometry. Although these methodologies share a similar principle, the comparison of results appears to be compromised. Therefore, prior to switching methodologies, further studies should be conducted to assess which methodology could be better applied to specific populations. It is also essential to standardise IgG Subclasses assays to reduce discrepancies that arise from comparing results.
人们对免疫球蛋白 G 亚类 (IgG Subclasses) 的检测越来越感兴趣,因为越来越多的信息被收集到,并且人们对与每种 IgG 亚类缺乏相关的疾病的认识也在不断提高。有多种不同的方法可用于 IgG 亚类的检测,但它们的特异性有所不同。因此,实验室可以根据自身的常规需求选择合适的方法,但这可能并不一定符合其人群的需求。此外,由于 IgG 亚类的定量缺乏标准化,因此在比较不同方法学提供的结果时,会出现诊断上的差距。因此,我们的研究目的是比较 Binding Site(TBS)Optilite®人免疫球蛋白 G(IgG)和 IgG 亚类免疫比浊法与我们临床实验室常规使用的西门子 BNII®散射比浊法的分析性能。我们的结果表明,免疫比浊法似乎是评估 IgG 亚类最可靠的方法:IgG 亚类总和与总 IgG 的相关性优于散射比浊法。尽管这些方法学具有相似的原理,但结果的比较似乎存在差异。因此,在切换方法学之前,应进行进一步的研究,以评估哪种方法学更适用于特定人群。标准化 IgG 亚类检测也很重要,以减少比较结果时出现的差异。