Clinical Chemistry 56: 314-318, 2010. First published December 18, 2009; 10.1373/clinchem.2009.135087
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2009.135087v1
56/2/314    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fu, Q.
Right arrow Articles by Van Eyk, J. E.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fu, Q.
Right arrow Articles by Van Eyk, J. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Automation and Analytical Techniques
(Clinical Chemistry. 2010;56:314-318.)
© 2010 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Brief Communication

Comparison of Multiplex Immunoassay Platforms

Qin Fu1,a, Jie Zhu1 and Jennifer E. Van Eyk1,2,3

Departments of1 Medicine, 2 Biomedical Engineering, and 3 Biological Chemistry, Bayview Proteomics Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD;

aaddress correspondence to this author at: Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Bayview Proteomics Center, Johns Hopkins University, 5200 Eastern Ave., Baltimore, MD 21224. E-mail qfu1{at}jhmi.edu.


Abstract

Background: Candidate biomarkers discovered with high-throughput proteomic techniques (along with many biomarkers reported in the literature) must be rigorously validated. The simultaneous quantitative assessment of multiple potential biomarkers across large cohorts presents a major challenge to the field. Multiplex immunoassays represent a promising solution, with the potential to provide quantitative data via parallel analyses. These assays also require substantially less sample and reagents than the traditional ELISA (which is further limited by its ability to measure only a single antigen). We have measured the reproducibility, reliability, robustness, accuracy, and throughput of commercially available multiplex immunoassays to ascertain their suitability for serum biomarker analysis and validation.

Methods: Assay platforms MULTI-ARRAY (Meso Scale Discovery), Bio-Plex (Bio-Rad Laboratories), A2 (Beckman Coulter), FAST Quant (Whatman Schleicher & Schuell BioScience), and FlowCytomix (Bender MedSystems) were selected as representative examples of technologies currently used for high-throughput immunoanalysis. All assays were performed according to protocols specified by the manufacturers and with the reagents (diluents, calibrators, blocking reagents, and detecting-antibody mixtures) included with their kits.

Results: The quantifiable interval determined for each assay and antigen was based on precision (CV < 25%) and percentage recovery (measured concentration within 20% of the actual concentration). The MULTI-ARRAY and Bio-Plex assays had the best performance with the lowest limits of detection, and the MULTI-ARRAY system had the most linear signal output over the widest concentration range (105 to 106). Cytokine concentrations in unspiked and cytokine-spiked serum samples from healthy individuals were further investigated with the MULTI-ARRAY and Bio-Plex assays.

Conclusions: The MULTI-ARRAY and Bio-Plex multiplex immunoassay systems are the most suitable for biomarker analysis or quantification.




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


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
H. S. Schipper, W. de Jager, M. E. A. van Dijk, J. Meerding, P. M. J. Zelissen, R. A. Adan, B. J. Prakken, and E. Kalkhoven
A Multiplex Immunoassay for Human Adipokine Profiling
Clin. Chem., August 1, 2010; 56(8): 1320 - 1328.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]