Hemmelder M H, de Jong P E, de Zeeuw D
Groningen Institute for Drug Studies, Department of Medicine, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Lab Clin Med. 1998 Nov;132(5):390-403. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2143(98)90110-x.
Fractional dextran clearances have been extensively used to study glomerular size selectivity. We report on an analysis of different laboratory procedures involved in measuring fractional dextran clearances. The deproteinization of plasma samples by 20% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) revealed a protein contamination of 0.2% +/- 0.3%, whereas both 5% TCA and zinc sulfate deproteinization revealed a significantly higher remaining sample protein content (2.5% +/- 0.4% and 3.4% +/- 0.1%, respectively). Only zinc sulfate revealed incomplete deproteinization of urine samples (0.6% +/- 0.2%). Dextran recovery in plasma and urine supernatants was significantly lower after 5% TCA and zinc sulfate deproteinization when compared with 20% TCA deproteinization. Gel permeation chromatography (GPC) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) showed a variance of calibration smaller than 5% over 1 year. The use of 3 different sets of standard dextrans revealed significant differences in calibration. GPC and HPLC followed by anthrone assay showed a comparable variance in dextran concentration in plasma, from 3 to 6 nm (14% to 25%), whereas the variance in urine was lower for the GPC and anthrone assay, especially from 5.4 to 6 nm (23% to 43% versus 50% to 78%). HPLC and online refractometry showed the lowest variance of dextran concentration in plasma, from 3 to 6 nm (<4%), and in urine, from 3 to 5.2 nm (<7%), whereas it showed a higher variance in urine, from 5.4 to 6 nm, in comparison with GPC and HPLC with the anthrone assay. The GPC and anthrone assay revealed higher fractional dextran clearances in comparison with the HPLC and anthrone assay in healthy subjects (3 to 5.4 nm) as well as in patients with nondiabetic proteinuria (4.2 to 5.8 nm), and lower clearances in patients from 3 to 3.4 nm. The HPLC and anthrone assay revealed higher clearances in comparison with HPLC and online refractometry in healthy subjects (3.6 to 5.4 nm) and in patients (3.6 to 5.2 nm). The GPC and anthrone assay revealed characteristic differences in fractional dextran clearances between healthy subjects and patients. The HPLC and anthrone assay showed no significant differences between both groups, whereas HPLC and online refractometry showed only an increased clearance of dextrans from 4.6 to 5.2 nm in patients. Fractional clearances of dextran 5.6 nm as estimated by all 3 dextran assays were not significantly related to the fractional immunoglobulin G clearance or the immunoglobulin-to-albumin clearance index in our patients. Quantitative and qualitative differences in fractional dextran clearances may be induced by differences in laboratory procedures. We recommend sample preparation by 20% TCA deproteinization, frequent calibration with 1 set of dextran standards with low polydispersity, size-exclusion chromatography by GPC, and dextran detection by anthrone assay for optimal measurement of fractional dextran clearances. Even with such an approach, however, the variability in the measurement remains extremely high in the important range of dextrans greater than 5 nm.
分数葡聚糖清除率已被广泛用于研究肾小球大小选择性。我们报告了对测量分数葡聚糖清除率所涉及的不同实验室程序的分析。用20%三氯乙酸(TCA)对血浆样本进行脱蛋白处理后,蛋白质污染率为0.2%±0.3%,而5%TCA和硫酸锌脱蛋白处理后,剩余样本蛋白质含量显著更高(分别为2.5%±0.4%和3.4%±0.1%)。只有硫酸锌显示尿液样本脱蛋白不完全(0.6%±0.2%)。与20%TCA脱蛋白处理相比,5%TCA和硫酸锌脱蛋白处理后血浆和尿液上清液中的葡聚糖回收率显著降低。凝胶渗透色谱法(GPC)和高效液相色谱法(HPLC)显示,1年内校准的方差小于5%。使用3组不同的标准葡聚糖显示校准存在显著差异。GPC和HPLC随后进行蒽酮测定显示,血浆中3至6纳米葡聚糖浓度的方差相当(14%至25%),而GPC和蒽酮测定尿液中的方差较低,尤其是5.4至6纳米(23%至43%对50%至78%)。HPLC和在线折射测定法显示血浆中3至6纳米葡聚糖浓度的方差最低(<4%),尿液中3至5.2纳米的方差最低(<7%),但与GPC和HPLC及蒽酮测定法相比,其在尿液中5.4至6纳米的方差较高。与HPLC和蒽酮测定法相比,GPC和蒽酮测定法显示健康受试者(3至5.4纳米)以及非糖尿病蛋白尿患者(4.2至5.8纳米)的分数葡聚糖清除率更高,而3至3.4纳米患者的清除率更低。与HPLC和在线折射测定法相比,HPLC和蒽酮测定法显示健康受试者(3.6至5.4纳米)和患者(3.6至5.2纳米)的清除率更高。GPC和蒽酮测定法显示健康受试者和患者之间分数葡聚糖清除率存在特征性差异。HPLC和蒽酮测定法显示两组之间无显著差异,而HPLC和在线折射测定法仅显示患者中4.6至5.2纳米葡聚糖的清除率增加。我们所有3种葡聚糖测定法估计的5.6纳米葡聚糖的分数清除率与我们患者的分数免疫球蛋白G清除率或免疫球蛋白与白蛋白清除率指数无显著相关性。分数葡聚糖清除率的定量和定性差异可能由实验室程序的差异引起。我们建议采用20%TCA脱蛋白进行样本制备,使用一组低多分散性的葡聚糖标准品进行频繁校准,通过GPC进行尺寸排阻色谱法,并通过蒽酮测定法进行葡聚糖检测,以实现分数葡聚糖清除率的最佳测量。然而,即使采用这种方法,在大于5纳米的重要葡聚糖范围内,测量的变异性仍然极高。