McKay E J
Br J Haematol. 1980 Oct;46(2):277-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1980.tb05967.x.
Antithrombin III (AT) levels from normal and AT deficiency persons were measured by electroimmunoassay (EIA) and the results compared with a chromogenic assay (S2238). Discrepant results were obtained when plasma and serum were compared using one antiserum, and therefore did not always relate to functional activity. Another antiserum, however, when used was capable of differentiating active AT from inactive AT complexed with its proteases and demonstrated close correlation with all samples tested (r=0.97). The specificity of the antisera and consequent anomalous results were elucidated when purified human thrombin was added to plasma samples and subsequently reanalysed. Quantitative differences observed when serum samples were compared by single radial immunodiffusion and electroimmunoassay with one antiserum, illustrates the fundamental principle differences between the two methods. These results give some insight as to why previous anomalies with AT immunoassays have occurred. They also indicate that plasma and not serum should be used as clinical test material. AT antisera should be capable of recognizing and distinguishing free AT from AT/protease complexes if the results obtained by electroimmunoassay are to correlate with functional activity.
采用电免疫分析法(EIA)测定正常人和抗凝血酶III(AT)缺乏者的AT水平,并将结果与发色底物法(S2238)进行比较。当使用一种抗血清比较血浆和血清时,得到了不一致的结果,因此结果并不总是与功能活性相关。然而,当使用另一种抗血清时,它能够区分活性AT和与其蛋白酶结合的非活性AT复合物,并且与所有测试样品显示出密切的相关性(r=0.97)。当将纯化的人凝血酶加入血浆样品并随后重新分析时,阐明了抗血清的特异性以及由此产生的异常结果。当用一种抗血清通过单向放射免疫扩散法和电免疫分析法比较血清样品时观察到的定量差异,说明了这两种方法之间的基本原理差异。这些结果为之前AT免疫测定出现异常的原因提供了一些见解。它们还表明,临床检测材料应使用血浆而非血清。如果电免疫分析法获得的结果要与功能活性相关,AT抗血清应能够识别并区分游离AT和AT/蛋白酶复合物。