1982Clinical ChemistryRequires access

Implications of using different tissue ferritins as antigens for ferritin in serum: four radioimmunoassay kits compared.

Bernard A. van Oost, F.L.A. Willekens, B R van Neerbos, Bep van den Beld

Open publisher page 9 citations

Abstract

We compared three serum ferritin radioimmunoassay kits and one noncommercial RIA for ferritin quantitation, with regression analysis of results for sera from 35 ostensibly healthy subjects. There was a good correlation (p less than 0.001) between these various RIAs, but the slope of the regression line varied widely, most probably because of lack of standardization of the serum ferritin assay. Determination of the ferritin content of purified samples of tissue ferritin revealed that the kits differ in specificity, differences for purified human spleen ferritin and human liver ferritin being larger than those for normal sera. Removing the iron from purified liver ferritin increased antiserum binding in two of the kits by twofold, but had no effect in two other kits. We conclude that commercial RIA methods for serum ferritin differ in specificity, and that this difference is related to the source of ferritin used in the production of the antibodies.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

We compared three serum ferritin radioimmunoassay kits and one noncommercial RIA for ferritin quantitation, with regression analysis of results for sera from 35 ostensibly healthy subjects. There was a good correlation (p less than 0.001) between these various RIAs, but the slope of the regression line varied widely, most probably because of lack of standardization of the serum ferritin assay. Determination of the ferritin content of purified samples of tissue ferritin revealed that the kits differ in specificity, differences for purified human spleen ferritin and human liver ferritin being larger than those for normal sera. Removing the iron from purified liver ferritin increased antiserum binding in two of the kits by twofold, but had no effect in two other kits. We conclude that commercial RIA methods for serum ferritin differ in specificity, and that this difference is related to the source of ferritin used in the production of the antibodies.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 9 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

We compared three serum ferritin radioimmunoassay kits and one noncommercial RIA for ferritin quantitation, with regression analysis of results for sera from 35 ostensibly healthy subjects. There was a good correlation (p less than 0.001) between these various RIAs, but the slope of the regression line varied widely, most probably because of lack of standardization of the serum ferritin assay. Determination of the ferritin content of purified samples of tissue ferritin revealed that the kits differ in specificity, differences for purified human spleen ferritin and human liver ferritin being larger than those for normal sera. Removing the iron from purified liver ferritin increased antiserum binding in two of the kits by twofold, but had no effect in two other kits. We conclude that commercial RIA methods for serum ferritin differ in specificity, and that this difference is related to the source of ferritin used in the production of the antibodies.

Key concepts: Radioimmunoassay, Ferritin, Antiserum, Spleen, Antigen, Chemistry, Antibody, Serum ferritin

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Implications of using different tissue ferritins as antigens for ferritin in serum: four radioimmunoassay kits compared. — Research Paper | ScholarLens