Comparison of two methods for measurement of equine insulin

Banse, Heidi E.; McCann, John M.; Yang, Fan; Wagg, Catherine; McFarlane, Dianne

doi:10.1177/1040638714536560

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study used the radioimmunoassay (RIA) to measure insulin concentrations, whereas in the UK a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CL) is widely used by commercial laboratories. Previous studies have reported that the two techniques are inequivalent [23]. When two RIAs were compared with the CL, all differed significantly with values from the CL being significantly lower than those from the two RIAs [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Effect of varying the dose of corn syrup on the insulin and glucose response to the oral sugar test

Jocelyn

Harries²,

Menzies‐Gow

2018

Equine Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Effect of varying the dose of corn syrup on the insulin and glucose response to the oral sugar test

Jocelyn

Harries²,

Menzies‐Gow

2018

Equine Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to a lack of LC-MS in our study, potential over- or underestimation of the assays examined could not be evaluated. Banse and colleagues [7] compared the human-specific RIA 8 with another commercially available CLIA9 which is often used for the measurement of equine insulin in both clinical practice and research. Both the human-specific RIA 8 and the CLIA 9 resulted in poor recovery rates within each assay and showed poor accordance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several immunoassay methods for the quantification of insulin in equine serum or plasma samples are commercially available. However, due to the use of different methods for quantifying equine insulin, discrepancies between results obtained from different studies have occurred [6, 7]. Since no assay with a specific antibody against equine insulin is available, most of the commercial immunoassays are based on antibodies directed against human or non-equine insulin.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundExact analysis of equine insulin in blood samples is the key element for assessing insulin resistance or insulin dysregulation in horses. However, previous studies indicated marked differences in insulin concentrations obtained from sample analyses with different immunoassays. Most assays used in veterinary medicine are originally designed for use in human diagnostics and are based on antibodies directed against human insulin, although amino acid sequences between equine and human insulin differ. Species-specific assays are being used more frequently and seem to provide advantages compared to human-specific assays. The aim of this study was to compare three immunoassays, one porcine-specific insulin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), advertised to be specific for equine insulin, one porcine-specific insulin radioimmunoassay (RIA) and one human-specific insulin chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), all three widely used in veterinary laboratories for the analysis of equine insulin. Furthermore, we tested their clinical applicability in assessing insulin resistance and dysregulation by analysis of basal blood and blood samples obtained during a dynamic diagnostic stimulation test (OGT) with elevated insulin concentrations.ResultsInsulin values obtained from the ELISA, RIA and CLIA, investigated for analyses of basal blood samples differed significantly between all three assays. Analyses of samples obtained during dynamic diagnostic stimulation testing with consecutively higher insulin concentrations revealed significantly (p < 0.001) lower insulin concentrations supplied by the CLIA compared to the ELISA. However, values measured by ELISA were intermediate and not different to those measured by RIA. Calculated recovery upon dilution, as a marker for assay accuracy in diluted samples, was 98 ± 4 % for ELISA, 160 ± 41 % for RIA and 101 ± 11 % for CLIA.ConclusionsOur results indicate that insulin concentrations of one sample measured by different methods vary greatly and should be interpreted carefully. Consideration of the immunoassay method and reliable assay-specific reference ranges are of particular importance especially in clinical cases where small changes in insulin levels can cause false classification in terms of insulin sensitivity of horses and ponies.

show abstract

“…Confounding the problems associated with the use of basal serum insulin concentration is the variety of laboratory assays currently used to determine equine insulin concentration [61][62][63][64][65]. All of the currently available tests suffer limitations and this is an area in desperate need of further research.…”

Section: Basal Serum Insulin Concentrationmentioning

confidence: 99%