Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Clinical Chemistry 32: 353-355, 1986;
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 Gerbaut, L.
Right arrow Articles by Macart, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gerbaut, L.
Right arrow Articles by Macart, M.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 32, 353-355, Copyright © 1986 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Is standardization more important than methodology for assay of total protein in cerebrospinal fluid?

L Gerbaut and M Macart

Four manual micromethods for protein determination, two turbidimetric (trichloroacetic and sulfosalicylic acid-sodium sulfate) and two colorimetric (Lowry and Coomassie Brilliant Blue--sodium dodecyl sulfate, CBB-SDS) were used to compare the standard curves for total protein (0.30 to 3 g/L) produced with three reference materials: bovine serum albumin, human serum albumin, and diluted human serum. We measured the apparent protein content of a sample of pooled human cerebrospinal fluid by all four methods and with use of all three standards. The only reference material that gave similar results with all four methods was diluted human serum; the CBB-SDS was the only method that gave identical results with all three reference materials. We then measured the protein concentration of 28 individual cerebrospinal fluid samples by the four methods, with diluted human serum as standard. Results by all methods correlated well, but only the sulfosalicylic acid and the CBB-SDS methods gave equivalent results. We conclude that the choice of standard is more important than the method used. However, the CBB-SDS method may be the preferred method because it produced identical standard curves with all three protein standards.


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


Home page
J Child NeurolHome page
K. Barnard, R. Herold, H. Siemes, and M. Siegert
Quantification of Cerebrospinal Fluid Proteins in Children by High-Resolution Agarose Gel Electrophoresis
J Child Neurol, February 1, 1998; 13(2): 51 - 58.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1986 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.