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


     


Clinical Chemistry 0: clinchem.2005.059949v1, 2006; 10.1373/clinchem.2005.059949
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2005.059949v1
52/9/1722    most recent
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ensign, W.
Right arrow Articles by Heward, C. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ensign, W.
Right arrow Articles by Heward, C. B.

Received on August 31, 2005
Accepted on May 4, 2006

Lipids, Lipoproteins, and Cardiovascular Risk Factors

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

Wayne Ensign 1, Nicole Hill 2, Christopher B. Heward 2*

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

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. 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 popular, standardization of methodologies 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:


Home page
CirculationHome page
H. R. Superko
Advanced Lipoprotein Testing and Subfractionation Are Clinically Useful
Circulation, May 5, 2009; 119(17): 2383 - 2395.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
S. Mora
Advanced Lipoprotein Testing and Subfractionation Are Not (Yet) Ready for Routine Clinical Use
Circulation, May 5, 2009; 119(17): 2396 - 2404.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
S. Ip, A. H. Lichtenstein, M. Chung, J. Lau, and E. M. Balk
Systematic Review: Association of Low-Density Lipoprotein Subfractions With Cardiovascular Outcomes
Ann Intern Med, April 7, 2009; 150(7): 474 - 484.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
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]


Home page
Clin. Chem.Home page
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]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2006 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.