Sampson E J, Hannon W H, McKneally S S, McKenzie C, Miller S A, Whitner V S, Burtis C A
Clin Chem. 1979 Oct;25(10):1691-5.
We compare a column-chromatographic method and a homogeneous immunoassay method for separately measuring the mitochondrial and cytoplasmic isoenzymes of aspartate aminotransferase. Analytical recovery for the two methods averaged 102% (SD, 2%) and 103% (SD, 4%), respectively, for 11 pools prepared by adding the purified isoenzymes to serum and 102% (SD 8.9%) and 89% (SD, 8.1%) for 26 unaltered specimens of human serum. In comparing the results of the immunoassay method (y) to the chromatographic method (x), our measurements agreed closely for the mitochondrial (y = 0.947 X + 7, r = 0.9991, standard error of estimate = 2.9 U/L) and cytoplasmic (y = 0.92x-6, r = 0.9995, standard error of estimate = 2.1 U/L) isoenzymes in pools prepared from the purified isoenzymes. Similar measurements of the 26 human serum specimens yielded the following results for least-squares evaluation; cytoplasmic isoenzyme y = 1.03x-11, r = 0.994, and standard error of estimate = 6.0 U/L; mitochondrial isoenzyme y = 0.75x+0, r = 0.927, and standard error of estimate = 3.9 U/L.
我们比较了柱色谱法和均相免疫分析法,以分别测量天冬氨酸氨基转移酶的线粒体同工酶和细胞质同工酶。对于通过向血清中添加纯化的同工酶制备的11个样本池,两种方法的分析回收率分别平均为102%(标准差,2%)和103%(标准差,4%);对于26份未改变的人血清样本,回收率分别为102%(标准差8.9%)和89%(标准差,8.1%)。在将免疫分析法(y)的结果与色谱法(x)进行比较时,对于由纯化的同工酶制备的样本池中,线粒体同工酶(y = 0.947X + 7,r = 0.9991,估计标准误差 = 2.9 U/L)和细胞质同工酶(y = 0.92x - 6,r = 0.9995,估计标准误差 = 2.1 U/L)的测量结果非常接近。对26份人血清样本进行的类似测量,得到了以下用于最小二乘法评估的结果:细胞质同工酶y = 1.03x - 11,r = 0.994,估计标准误差 = 6.0 U/L;线粒体同工酶y = 0.75x + 0,r = 0.927,估计标准误差 = 3.