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


     

Clinical Chemistry 45: 2293-2294, 1999;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Wilson, D. H.
Right arrow Articles by Herrmann, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, D. H.
Right arrow Articles by Herrmann, R. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Endocrinology and Metabolism
(Clinical Chemistry. 1999;45:2293-2294.)
© 1999 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Letters

Antibody Selection for the Abbott AxSYM Troponin I Assay

David H. Wilsona, Don M. Laird, Cathy M. Forsythe, Tom T. Biegalski, Anne L. Keller and Robert J. Herrmann

Department of Thyroid, Metabolic,, and Cardiovascular Diagnostics R/D, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL 60064
a Author for correspondence. Fax 847-938-7920; e-mail David.Wilson@add.ssw.com.


To the Editor:

A recent report by Apple et al. (1) presented the performance characteristics of the AxSYM Troponin I (cTnI) assay, which included method comparison data with the Dade-Behring Stratus, Behring Opus, and Beckman Access cTnI assays. In commenting on the absolute differences in measured cTnI between methods (2- to 100-fold), the authors spoke of the need for unified rationale for antibody selection in assays for cTnI. Indeed, this has been a topic of substantial discussion in the recent literature in view of the large differences observed between cTnI methods [e.g., see Ref. (2)]. Most recently, Shi et al. (3) added to earlier results of Katrukha et al. (4) on cTnI degradation. In both reports, degradation of cTnI and differential epitope specificities between commercial methods were cited as significant contributors to between-method variation. Both studies also indicated that the C-terminal portion of the molecule is labile to proteolytic degradation, whereas the N-terminal half of the . . . [Full Text of this Article]


References






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.