Mass spectrometric and physiological validation of a sensitive, automated, direct immunoassay for serum estradiol using the Architect®

Sluss, Patrick M.; Hayes, Frances J.; Adams, Judith; Barnes, Wayne N.; Williams, Gregg; Frost, Stephen J.; Ramp, John M.; Pacenti, David P.; Lehotay, Denis C.; George, Sabu; Ramsay, Carol; Doss, Robert C.; Crowley, William F.

doi:10.1016/j.cca.2007.10.020

Cited by 38 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study did not address that question. Our findings extend previous reports comparing direct E 2 immunoassays with MS-based methods in men but where only a single commercial immunoassay (17)(18)(19) or in-house immunoassays (15,20 ) were examined. Our results are also consistent with the findings in postmenopausal or aromatase inhibitortreated women with comparably low circulating E 2 concentrations (4,12,13,27 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Therefore, aiming to measure the expected (picomolar) serum E 2 concentrations that render T immunoassays unreliable makes it unsurprising that direct E 2 immunoassays lack accuracy and validity for measurements of serum E 2 in not only men but also children (11 ) as well as postmenopausal (4,(12)(13)(14) or aromatase inhibitor-treated (15 ) women who have comparably low blood E 2 concentrations (16 ). Comparisons of direct E 2 immunoassays with mass spectrometrybased reference methods in men have previously been confined to single commercial E 2 immunoassays (17)(18)(19), whereas other studies focused on in-house E 2 immunoassays (15,20 ) or studied only women (4,12,13 ). Here we used a reference panel of sera to calibrate and compare the performance of widely used commercial direct E 2 immunoassays relative to the reference LC-MS method using a reference panel of healthy older men (8 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance of Direct Estradiol Immunoassays with Human Male Serum Samples

Handelsman

Newman²,

Jimenez

et al. 2014

Clinical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:Steroid immunoassays originally required solvent extraction, chromatography, and structurally authentic tracers to avoid interference from steroid cross-reactivity and matrix effects. The demand for steroid assays has driven assay simplification, bypassing this triplet of validity criteria to allow use of unextracted serum, which has introduced bias and nonspecificity at low steroid concentrations. We aimed to evaluate the performance of commercial direct estradiol (E 2 ) immunoassays relative to the reference method of LC-MS and compared serum E 2 measurements from each assay with biomarkers of estrogen action.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Direct Estradiol Immunoassays with Human Male Serum Samples

Handelsman

Newman²,

Jimenez

et al. 2014

Clinical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CPP participants and study controls demonstrated a similar distribution of chronotype scores, with the average score in both groups falling within the "intermediate" category, defined as scores of 24-32 (CPP: 27.5 ± 1.7 ; controls: 25.2 ± 3.1 [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]). Suppressive therapy with a GnRHa and/or the passage of time had no effect on CPP participants' morningness/ eveningness preference, and chronotype did not correlate with chronologic age or stage of breast development in combined analyses of CPP participants and study controls (r = −0.06, p > .05 for both tests).…”

Section: Chronotype In Cpp Participants and Study Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The E2 assay has been standardized and calibrated against liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. 24 DHEAS was measured using an immunoassay (Quest Diagnostics).…”

Section: Reproductive Hormone Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between Estrogen and the Decline in Delta Power During Adolescence

McHill

Klerman

Slater

et al. 2017

Sleep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Objectives: During adolescence, there is a precipitous decrease in slow-wave sleep (SWS) and its spectral correlate, delta power, which may reflect cortical reorganization. The temporal association between the decrease in delta power and puberty suggests that sex steroids may initiate these changes. This association has not been previously investigated. Methods: To determine whether estrogen triggers the adolescent decline in delta power, we compared delta power in 14 girls with central precocious puberty (CPP) and 6 age-matched, prepubertal controls. Five CPP participants were re-studied 7-14 months after pubertal suppression to determine if the changes in delta power are reversible after restoring a prepubertal hormonal milieu. The change in delta power was also compared between CPP participants and five historic controls from a longitudinal polysomnographic study. Results: CPP participants (6.7-10.5 years) spent 30% of the night in SWS. Delta power (3.7 × 10 6 ± 2.7 × 10 5 µV 2 ) predominated in the first 2 non-rapid eye movement episodes and decayed exponentially (tau 0.006 minutes). Age-matched controls demonstrated similar sleep staging (24% SWS) and delta dynamics (3.3 × 10 6 ± 5.1 × 10 5 µV 2 , tau 0.004 minutes). Four out of 5 CPP participants had a significant decrease (26%) in delta power after hormone suppression (p < .05), similar to historic controls. Conclusion: Using an innovative model of girls with CPP studied before and after estrogen suppression, the effects of puberty on the decline in delta power were dissociated from those of chronologic age. The current studies suggest that increased estrogen does not cause the adolescent decline in delta power and indicate that neurodevelopmental changes per se or other factors associated with puberty drive these sleep changes.

show abstract

“…Cross-reactivity with E1 was 0.07%. The Architect E2 assay was standardized and calibrated against liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS) (34,35). E1 was measured using an RIA (Diagnostic Systems Laboratories, Webster, TX) with a functional sensitivity of 12 pg/mL and an interassay CV of 4.1% within the range of reported samples (36).…”

Section: Hormone Assaysmentioning

confidence: 99%