HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: clinchem.2005.059949v1 52/9/1722    most recent Submit an electronic Letter to the Editor about this paper Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ensign, W. Articles by Heward, C. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ensign, W. Articles by Heward, C. B. Related Collections Lipids, Lipoproteins, and Cardiovascular Risk Factors

Disparate LDL Phenotypic Classification among 4 Different Methods Assessing LDL Particle Characteristics

¹ Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA.
² Kronos Science Laboratories, Inc., Phoenix, AZ.

^aAddress correspondence to this author at: Kronos Science Laboratories, Inc., 2222 E. Highland Ave., Suite 220, Phoenix, AZ 85016. Fax 602-667-5623; e-mail chris.heward{at}kronoslaboratory.com.

Background: Our study seeks to clarify the extent of differences in analytical results, from a clinical perspective, among 4 leading technologies currently used in clinical reference laboratories for the analysis of LDL subfractions: gradient gel electrophoresis (GGE), ultracentrifugation–vertical auto profile (VAP), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and tube gel electrophoresis (TGE).

Methods: We collected 4 simultaneous blood samples from 40 persons (30 males and 10 females) to determine LDL subclasses in 4 different clinical reference laboratories using different methods for analysis. LDL subfractions were assessed according to LDL particle size and the results categorized according to LDL phenotype. We compared results obtained from the different technologies.

Results: We observed substantial heterogeneity of results and interpretations among the 4 methods. Complete agreement among methods with respect to LDL subclass phenotyping occurred in only 8% (n = 3) of the persons studied. NMR and GGE agreed most frequently at 70% (n = 28), whereas VAP matched least often.

Conclusions: As measurement of LDL subclasses becomes increasingly important, standardization of methods is needed. Variation among currently available methods renders them unreliable and limits their clinical usefulness.

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

				J. O. Mudd, B. A. Borlaug, P. V. Johnston, B. G. Kral, R. Rouf, R. S. Blumenthal, and P. O. Kwiterovich Jr Beyond Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol: Defining the Role of Low-Density Lipoprotein Heterogeneity in Coronary Artery Disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 30, 2007; 50(18): 1735 - 1741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Teerlink and P. G. Scheffer LDL Particles Are Nonspherical: Consequences for Size Determination and Phenotypic Classification Clin. Chem., February 1, 2007; 53(2): 361 - 362. [Full Text] [PDF]