“…[2][3][4][5] EIA gives good correlation with the published RIA techniques, validating the methodology used in this study and has the additional advantage of using non-radioactive material. 6 Peptides such as oxytocin have low molecular stability at room temperature and short half-lives so samples must be frozen to avoid degradation by aminopeptidases. Serum albumin can also affect measurements by binding to components of the EIA.…”
“…[2][3][4][5] EIA gives good correlation with the published RIA techniques, validating the methodology used in this study and has the additional advantage of using non-radioactive material. 6 Peptides such as oxytocin have low molecular stability at room temperature and short half-lives so samples must be frozen to avoid degradation by aminopeptidases. Serum albumin can also affect measurements by binding to components of the EIA.…”
“…In 1994, the first ELISA suitable for measuring oxytocin in plasma was developed by Prakash et al . . They recognised that plasma components interfered by reducing antibody binding, and so they constructed standard curves in hormone‐stripped plasma.…”
In this review, we consider the ways in which vasopressin and oxytocin have been measured since their first discovery. Two different ways of measuring oxytocin in widespread use currently give values in human plasma that differ by two orders of magnitude, and the values measured by these two methods in the same samples show no correlation. The notion that we should accept this seems absurd. Either one (or both) methods is not measuring oxytocin, or, by 'oxytocin', the scientists that use these different methods mean something very different. If these communities are to talk to each other, it is important to validate one method and invalidate the other, or else to establish exactly what each community understands by 'oxytocin'. A similar issue concerns vasopressin: again, different ways of measuring vasopressin give values in human plasma that differ by two orders of magnitude, and it appears that the same explanation for discrepant oxytocin measurements applies to discrepant vasopressin measurements. The first assays for oxytocin and vasopressin measured biological activity directly. When immunoassays were introduced, they encountered problems: high molecular weight factors in raw plasma interfered with the binding of antibodies to the hormones, leading to high and erroneous readings. When these interfering factors were removed by extraction of plasma samples, immunoassays gave measurements consistent with bioassays, with measures of turnover and with the sensitivity of target tissues to exogenous hormone. However, many recent papers use an enzyme-linked immunoassay to measure plasma levels without extracting the samples. Like the first radioimmunassays of unextracted plasma, this generates impossibly high and wholly erroneous measurements.
“…Hence, it is significant to develop sensitive methods for the determination of OXT for food safety. In recent years, several techniques, such as high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) [1], capillary electrophoresis [5], enzyme immunoassay procedures [6], have been reported for the determination of OXT. But, these techniques can require great amount of reagents and solvents.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.