Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 21: 243-248, 1975;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Daniels, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ritzmann, S. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Daniels, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ritzmann, S. E.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 21, 243-248, Copyright © 1975 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Methodologic Differences in Values for M-Proteins in Serum, as Measured by Three Techniques

Jerry C. Daniels 1, Theona M. Vyvial 1, William C. Levin 1, and Stephan E. Ritzmann 1

1 Divisions of Experimental Immunology and Hematology of the Departments of Medicine and Pathology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Tex. 77550.

Accurate and reproducible measurement of M-proteins is essential for managing patients with monoclonal gammopathies, but serum protein electrophoresis, radial immunodiffusion, and electroimmunodiffusion yield comparatively divergent results. We have studied these differences and their causes. Sera from cases of IgG-monoclonal gammopathy, IgA-monoclonal gammopathy, and IgM-monoclonal gammopathy were assayed by each of the three techniques. Results indicated intermethod discrepancies as great as fivefold for all proteins studied. For IgG-monoclonal gammopathy, radial immunodiffusion values were uniformly higher; electroimmunodiffusion values were less consistently so. For IgA-monoclonal gammopathy, both radial immunodiffusion and electroimmunodiffusion gave lower results than did serum protein electrophoresis. For IgM-monoclonal gammopathy, results were variable, but values by radial immunodiffusion tended to be higher than, and electroimmunodiffusion comparable to, those for serum protein electrophoresis. The differences were not correlated with protein abundance, serum freshness, immunoglobulin class, light-chain type, ultracentrifugal characteristics, or electrophoretic mobility. Clearly, values for M-protein concentration depend on the techniques used to obtain them. We postulate that subclass differences may contribute to the diversity of radial immunodiffusion results, and that for electroimmunodiffusion the fixed electrophoretic mobility of M-proteins leads to unpredictable results. We conclude that serum protein electrophoresis is the best of the three assay techniques for M-proteins.


Key Words: electrophoresis on cellulose acetate • radial immunodiffusion • electroimmunodiffusion • rnonoclonal gammopathies • immunoglobulins • diagnostic aid

Submitted on August 5, 1974
Accepted on November 27, 1974




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Annals of Clinical & Laboratory ScienceHome page
C. H. Tseng, C.-Y. Chang, K. S. Liu, and F. J. Liu
Accuracy of Serum IgM and IgA Monoclonal Protein Measurements by Densitometry
Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci., April 1, 2003; 33(2): 160 - 166.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1975 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.