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


     

Clinical Chemistry 31: 746-750, 1985;
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 Wiebe, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wiebe, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, S. J.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 31, 746-750, Copyright © 1985 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Six methods for isolating high-density lipoprotein compared, with use of the reference method for quantifying cholesterol in serum

DA Wiebe and SJ Smith

Using 90 serum specimens, we compared six routine procedures for high- density lipoprotein (HDL) isolation to determine the biases, if any, of each. Use of the Reference Method for cholesterol (Duncan et al., Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA) and automated dispensing equipment helped ensure the accuracy of the cholesterol measurements and minimized errors from sample and reagent manipulations. Regression analysis of the results showed significant differences between most HDL isolation methods, except for those involving precipitation with heparin-MnCl2 (1.0 mol/L) or polyethylene glycol 6000, which yielded comparable results with a slope close to one and a zero intercept. The dextran sulfate (Mr 500 000)-MgCl2 method had the largest proportional and constant bias with respect to those two methods. All the methods produced comparable results in the clinically important low HDL- cholesterol range (250 to 350 mg/L), but biases were significant at high concentrations. We conclude that these increased biases in the upper ranges of HDL-cholesterol concentrations are the result of increased heterogeneity of HDL and the different mechanisms involved in forming the insoluble complexes between lipoproteins and the various precipitation reagents.


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


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
S. Usui, M. Nakamura, K. Jitsukata, M. Nara, S. Hosaki, and M. Okazaki
Assessment of Between-Instrument Variations in a HPLC Method for Serum Lipoproteins and Its Traceability to Reference Methods for Total Cholesterol and HDL-Cholesterol
Clin. Chem., January 1, 2000; 46(1): 63 - 72.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
R. G. Reed
In Search of the Ideal Measure of High-Density Lipoprotein
Clin. Chem., October 1, 1997; 43(10): 1809 - 1810.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1985 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.