No abstract

Purpose: The scope and significance of human anti-animal antibody interference in immunological assays is reviewed with an emphasis on human anti-animal immunoglobulins, particularly human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMAs). Issues: Anti-animal antibodies (IgG, IgA, IgM, IgE class, anti-isotype, and anti-idiotype specificity) arise as a result of iatrogenic and noniatrogenic causes and include human anti-mouse, -rabbit, -goat, -sheep, -cow, -pig, -rat, and -horse antibodies and antibodies with mixed specificity. Circulating antibodies can reach gram per liter concentrations and may persist for years. Prevalence estimates for anti-animal antibodies in the general population vary widely and range from <1% to 80%. Human anti-animal antibodies cause interferences in immunological assays. The most common human anti-animal antibody interferent is HAMA, which causes both positive and negative interferences in two-site mouse monoclonal antibody-based assays. Strategies to prevent the development of human anti-animal antibody responses include immunosuppressant therapy and the use of humanized, polyethylene glycolylated, or Fab fragments of antibody agents. Sample pretreatment or assay redesign can eliminate immunoassay interferences caused by anti-animal antibodies. Enzyme immunoassays, immunoradiometric assays, immunofluorescence, and HPLC assays have been designed to detect HAMA and other anti-animal antibodies, but intermethod comparability is complicated by differences in assay specificity and lack of standardization. Conclusions: Human anti-animal antibodies often go unnoticed, to the detriment of patient care. A heightened awareness on the part of laboratory staff and clinicians of the problems caused by this type of interference in routine immunoassay tests is desirable. Efforts should be directed at improving methods for identifying and eliminating this type of analytical interference.

The microreaction volumes of PCR chips (a microfabricated silicon chip bonded to a piece of flat glass to form a PCR reaction chamber) create a relatively high surface to volume ratio that increases the significance of the surface chemistry in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We investigated several surface passivations in an attempt to identify 'PCR friendly' surfaces and used those surfaces to obtain amplifications comparable with those obtained in conventional PCR amplification systems using polyethylene tubes. Surface passivations by a silanization procedure followed by a coating of a selected protein or polynucleotide and the deposition of a nitride or oxide layer onto the silicon surface were investigated. Native silicon was found to be an inhibitor of PCR and amplification in an untreated PCR chip (i.e. native slicon) had a high failure rate. A silicon nitride (Si(3)N(4) reaction surface also resulted in consistent inhibition of PCR. Passivating the PCR chip using a silanizing agent followed by a polymer treatment resulted in good amplification. However, amplification yields were inconsistent and were not always comparable with PCR in a conventional tube. An oxidized silicon (SiO(2) surface gave consistent amplifications comparable with reactions performed in a conventional PCR tube.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract