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


     

Clinical Chemistry 46: 1719-1720, 2000;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Butch, A. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Butch, A. W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow General Clinical Chemistry
Right arrow Clinical Immunology
Right arrow Proteomics and Protein Markers
(Clinical Chemistry. 2000;46:1719-1720.)
© 2000 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Letters

Dilution Protocols for Detection of Hook Effects/Prozone Phenomenon

Anthony W. Butch

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Department of Pathology, 4301 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72205


To the Editor:

The prozone or (high-dose) hook effect, documented to cause false-negative assay results >50 years ago (1), still remains a problem in one-step immunometric assays (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9), immunoturbidimetric assays (10), and immunonephelometric assays (11) for immunoglobulins. To detect the prozone effect, samples are often tested undiluted and after dilution (9). If the result on dilution is higher than for the undiluted sample, then the undiluted sample most likely exhibited the prozone effect. Unfortunately, this approach increases labor and reagent costs for assays that may only rarely encounter extremely high analyte concentrations. An alternative approach involves pooling patient samples and measuring the pool and a 10-fold dilution of the pool (12). If one or more of the samples in the pool is falsely low because of the prozone effect, then the results from the undiluted and diluted pools (after correcting for the 10-fold dilution) will differ significantly . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Footnotes


References






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.