Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Methodological comparison of two anti-ZAP-70 antibodies.


ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:ZAP-70 expression is a stage independent prognostic marker in CLL. However, interlaboratory variation is large, and there is neither a consensus nor a regulatory approved methodology. METHODS:Two anti-ZAP70 clones (1E7.2 and SBZAP) were compared in 45 untreated CLL patients. Nine different methods for ZAP-70 expression analysis were evaluated: M1, isotype control to determine negative; M2, internal residual T-cell to determine positive; M3, normal donor (ND) T-cell to determine positive; M4, internal T-cell/clone ratio; M5, ND residual T-cell/clone ratio; M6, clone/normal remaining B-cell ratio; M7, clone/ND B- cell ratio; M8, CLL-Z score; M9, modified CLL-Z score. A scoring system was designed integrating both 1E7.2 and SBZAP clones to assign ZAP-70 expression. RESULTS:The correlation coefficients for the four selected highest statistically significant methods were as follows (M1 = 0.71, M3 = 0.72, M7 = 0.67, and M9 = 0.64). These four methods were used to generate a combined score. The two reagents showed agreement using the designed scoring system for 37/45 samples (82%), and 8/45 (18%) showed equivocal result with one of the two clones. Seven of the eight equivocal samples were resolved using the scoring system. CONCLUSIONS:Four of the nine methods of analysis were compared for each reagent. The use of two independent ZAP-70 reagents increases analytical certitude and the scoring method aids in the resolution of equivocal results. The combined use of two reagents, four methods of analysis, and a scoring method allowed for assignment of ZAP-70 expression in 44/45 samples (98%) tested and improved performance of this important prognostic assay.

SUBMITTER: Degheidy HA 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3461319 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications


<h4>Background</h4>ZAP-70 expression is a stage independent prognostic marker in CLL. However, interlaboratory variation is large, and there is neither a consensus nor a regulatory approved methodology.<h4>Methods</h4>Two anti-ZAP70 clones (1E7.2 and SBZAP) were compared in 45 untreated CLL patients. Nine different methods for ZAP-70 expression analysis were evaluated: M1, isotype control to determine negative; M2, internal residual T-cell to determine positive; M3, normal donor (ND) T-cell to d  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

2006-09-22 | GSE4392 | GEO
| S-EPMC3407415 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC2857167 | biostudies-literature
2009-04-23 | E-GEOD-4392 | biostudies-arrayexpress
| S-EPMC3407416 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6237676 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC2118636 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC1180533 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC4608720 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC4902731 | biostudies-literature