Dataset Information

Harmonizing the Calibrator and Microorganism Used in the Folate Microbiological Assay Increases the Comparability of Serum and Whole-Blood Folate Results in a CDC Round-Robin Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Harmonizing critical reagents for the folate microbiological assay (MBA) may improve among-laboratory comparability.

Objective

We assessed the comparability of the MBA for serum folate (S-FOL) and whole-blood folate (WB-FOL) in an international comparison study.

Methods

Eight laboratories obtained a kit containing CDC microorganism inoculum (chloramphenicol-resistant Lactobacillus rhamnosus), CDC calibrator (5-methyltetrahydrofolate), and 23 serum and WB hemolysate samples each. Laboratories analyzed the samples in single measurement over 2 d using 4 conditions: in-house microorganism and in-house calibrator (IH-MO & IH-CAL), in-house microorganism and CDC calibrator (IH-MO & CDC-CAL), CDC microorganism and in-house calibrator (CDC-MO & IH-CAL), and CDC microorganism and CDC calibrator (CDC-MO & CDC-CAL). We calculated geometric mean concentrations for each laboratory and condition and compared data to the CDC MBA (target).

Results

The among-laboratory arithmetic mean S-FOL concentrations for the 4 conditions were 30.2, 28.1, 30.0, and 29.9 (group 1, 5-methyltetrahydrofolate IH-CAL) compared with 35.3, 33.3, 33.6, and 30.7 nmol/L (group 2, folic acid IH-CAL), respectively; and 428, 405, 398, and 393 (group 1) compared with 469, 423, 477, and 418 nmol/L (group 2), respectively, for WB-FOL. Differences to the CDC MBA target values were smaller for group 1 (range across conditions; S-FOL: 9.9-21%; WB-FOL: 9.0-18%) compared with group 2 laboratories (S-FOL: 13-30%; WB-FOL: 16-32%) and smaller when CDC reagents were used compared with in-house reagents (S-FOL: 12% compared with 22%; WB-FOL: 13% compared with 25%). A linear mixed model estimated a small microorganism effect (S-FOL: 2.3%; WB-FOL: 2.3%) and a larger mean calibrator effect; folic acid compared with 5-methyltetrahydrofolate calibrator produced 12% higher S-FOL and 15% higher WB-FOL results. When laboratories used CDC reagents, the estimated among-laboratory variability was ∼10% for S-FOL and WB-FOL.

Conclusion

Harmonizing the calibrator and microorganism for the folate MBA has the potential to improve the among-laboratory comparability in future surveys.

SUBMITTER: Zhang M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8479687 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Serum folate methods produce different results. The comparability of HPLC-mass spectrometry (MS)/MS methods is not well documented.Objective: We conducted an international "round-robin" investigation to assess the comparability, precision, and accuracy of serum folate HPLC-MS/MS methods.Methods: The CDC laboratory, 7 laboratories with independently developed methods (group 1), and 6 laboratories with an adapted CDC method (group 2) analyzed folate forms in 6 serum pools and 6 calibrators from the CDC (duplicate analysis over 2 d) and in two 3-level reference materials (duplicate analysis).Results: All laboratories measured 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-methylTHF) and folic acid; some measured additional folate forms. The geometric mean (range) concentrations (nanomoles per liter) for 5-methylTHF in the 6 serum pools were 18.3 nmol/L (CDC), 13.8-28.9 nmol/L (group 1), and 16.8-18.6 nmol/L (group 2); for folic acid the concentrations were 3.42 nmol/L (CDC), 1.09-4.74 nmol/L (group 1), and 1.74-2.90 nmol/L (group 2). The median imprecision (CV) for 5-methylTHF was 4.1% (CDC), 4.6-11% (group 1), and 1.7-6.0% (group 2); for folic acid it was 6.9% (CDC), 4.9-20% (group 1), and 3.9-23% (group 2). The mean ± SD (range) recovery of 5-methylTHF spiked into serum was 98% ± 27% (59-138%) for group 1 and 98% ± 10% (82-111%) for group 2; for folic acid it was 93% ± 29% (67-198%) for group 1 and 81% ± 16% (64-102%) for group 2. The mean relative bias for 5-methylTHF compared with the reference material certificate value was 12% (CDC), -24% to 30% (group 1), and -0.6% to 16% (group 2); for folic acid it was 73% (CDC), -47% to 578% (group 1), and -3.3% to 67% (group 2).Conclusions: For 5-methylTHF, group 2 laboratories demonstrated better agreement and precision, less variable spiking recovery, and less bias by using a reference material. Laboratory performance for folic acid was highly variable and needs improvement. Certified reference materials for serum folate forms and total folate are needed to improve method accuracy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) is ubiquitous, yet there are concerns about whether BPA can be measured in human blood. This Round Robin was designed to address this concern through three goals: 1) to identify collection materials, reagents and detection apparatuses that do not contribute BPA to serum; 2) to identify sensitive and precise methods to accurately measure unconjugated BPA (uBPA) and BPA-glucuronide (BPA-G), a metabolite, in serum; and 3) to evaluate whether inadvertent hydrolysis of BPA-G occurs during sample handling and processing. METHODS:Four laboratories participated in this Round Robin. Laboratories screened materials to identify BPA contamination in collection and analysis materials. Serum was spiked with concentrations of uBPA and/or BPA-G ranging from 0.09-19.5 (uBPA) and 0.5-32 (BPA-G) ng/mL. Additional samples were preserved unspiked as 'environmental' samples. Blinded samples were provided to laboratories that used LC/MSMS to simultaneously quantify uBPA and BPA-G. To determine whether inadvertent hydrolysis of BPA metabolites occurred, samples spiked with only BPA-G were analyzed for the presence of uBPA. Finally, three laboratories compared direct and indirect methods of quantifying BPA-G. RESULTS:We identified collection materials and reagents that did not introduce BPA contamination. In the blinded spiked sample analysis, all laboratories were able to distinguish low from high values of uBPA and BPA-G, for the whole spiked sample range and for those samples spiked with the three lowest concentrations (0.5-3.1 ng/ml). By completion of the Round Robin, three laboratories had verified methods for the analysis of uBPA and two verified for the analysis of BPA-G (verification determined by: 4 of 5 samples within 20% of spiked concentrations). In the analysis of BPA-G only spiked samples, all laboratories reported BPA-G was the majority of BPA detected (92.2 - 100%). Finally, laboratories were more likely to be verified using direct methods than indirect ones using enzymatic hydrolysis. CONCLUSIONS:Sensitive and accurate methods for the direct quantification of uBPA and BPA-G were developed in multiple laboratories and can be used for the analysis of human serum samples. BPA contamination can be controlled during sample collection and inadvertent hydrolysis of BPA conjugates can be avoided during sample handling.