Dataset Information

The biotin interference within interference suppressed immunoassays.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Reports of false laboratory findings due to a biotin supplementation have raised concerns about the safety of immunoassays. According to current research, biotin is known to cause interference in immunoassays. Since up to 70% of medical decisions are based on laboratory results and the significantly increased intake of biotin supplements in the recent years, the reliability of immunoassays is essential.

Methods

To evaluate this reliability two experiments were conducted. In the first experiment 59 interference suppressed immunoassays of the manufacturer Roche Diagnostics were examined regarding their sensitivity to a biotin interference. In the second experiment the pharmacokinetic of biotin was examined by supplementing volunteers with biotin.

Results

A combination of the results of both experiments suggests that a biotin interference in laboratory findings is probable. Contrary to the current state of research on sandwich immunoassays, falsely elevated test results occur more frequently than falsely low results.

Conclusion

The interference suppressed immunoassays have shown in the experiment that they are susceptible to a biotin interference. Therefore, laboratory institutions, medical staff and patients must be aware of the possibility of a biotin interference. As a result, Roche Diagnostics may consider reviewing the interference suppression and their indications of the tests.

SUBMITTER: Kabiri P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8418509 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The homeostasis between mature neurotrophin NGF and its precursor proNGF is thought to be crucial in physiology and in pathological states. Therefore, the measurement of the relative amounts of NGF and proNGF could serve as a footprint for the identification of disease states, for diagnostic purposes. Since NGF is part of proNGF, their selective identification with anti-NGF antibodies is not straightforward. Currently, many immunoassays for NGF measurement are available, while the proNGF assays are few and not validated by published information. The question arises, as to whether the commercially available assays are able to distinguish between the two forms. Also, since in biological samples the two forms coexist, are the measurements of one species affected by the presence of the other? We describe experiments addressing these questions. For the first time, NGF and proNGF were measured together and tested in different immunoassays. Unexpectedly, NGF and proNGF were found to reciprocally interfere with the experimental outcome. The interference also calls into question the widely used NGF ELISA methods, applied to biological samples where NGF and proNGF coexist. Therefore, an immunoassay, able to distinguish between the two forms is needed. We propose possible ways forward, toward the development of a selective assay. In particular, the use of the well validated anti-NGF ?D11 antibody in an alphaLISA assay with optimized incubation times would be a solution to avoid the interference in the measurement of a mixed sample containing NGF and proNGF. Furthermore, we explored the possibility of measuring proNGF in a biological sample. But the available commercial kit for the detection of proNGF does not allow the measurement of proNGF in mouse brain tissues. Therefore, we validated an SPR approach for the measurement of proNGF in a biological sample. Our experiments help in understanding the technical limits in the measurement of the NGF/proNGF ratio in biological samples, and propose concrete solutions toward the solution of this problem.