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


     


Clinical Chemistry 33: 1971-1977, 1987;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schiele, F.
Right arrow Articles by Siest, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schiele, F.
Right arrow Articles by Siest, G.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 33, 1971-1977, Copyright © 1987 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Production and certification of an enzyme reference material for gamma- glutamyltransferase (CRM 319). Part 1: Preparation and characterization

F Schiele, J Muller, E Colinet and G Siest
Centre de Medecine Preventive, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France.

We have produced a batch of lyophilized gamma-glutamyltransferase as enzyme reference material. The "light" enzyme form was purified from pig kidney to a relatively high specific activity (120 kU/g) and was essentially free of contaminating enzymes. The partly purified gamma- glutamyltransferase, lyophilized in a matrix containing bovine serum albumin (Fraction V, 60 g/L), yielded a batch of 4000 ampules and was stored at -20 degrees C. The vial-to-vial variability with respect to the catalytic concentration of the final product (CV 0.6%) and its stability (predicted loss of activity at -20 degrees C was less than 0.01% per year) were considered sufficient to allow the use of this preparation for a certification procedure. The behavior of the reference material in comparison with human serum samples was evaluated three ways: (a) by kinetic characteristics, (b) by the ratio of activities for duplicate determinations by different methods, and (c) by use of the reference material to convert values obtained by various methodologies to those by the IFCC proposed method. The material appeared to be commutable for the two methods studied. The difference in the ratios obtained for patients' samples and reference material was less than +/- 5%, and the recalculated values for patients' samples as determined with the reference material differed from values determined by the IFCC method by no more than 4.8%.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1987 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.