1969
DOI: 10.1210/jcem-29-6-866
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Solid-Phase Radioimmunoassay of Estradiol-17β

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
166
0
3

Year Published

1974
1974
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 849 publications
(172 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
166
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The specificity of the two antisera was tested against several steroids; the crossreaction is expressed as the proportional ratio of the mass of steroid and interfering compound, at 50% displacement of the tracer (Abraham, 1969). Table 1 shows the results for the progesterone antiserum, Table 2 for the estrone antiserum.…”
Section: Results Radioimmunoassaysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The specificity of the two antisera was tested against several steroids; the crossreaction is expressed as the proportional ratio of the mass of steroid and interfering compound, at 50% displacement of the tracer (Abraham, 1969). Table 1 shows the results for the progesterone antiserum, Table 2 for the estrone antiserum.…”
Section: Results Radioimmunoassaysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the same time, varying amounts of unlabelled potentially crossreacting steroids from 25 pg to 100 ng were reacted as for the standard curve procedure and compared with results for the measurements with the homologous hormone. The percentage cross-reactivity was calculated as described (Abraham, 1969). The cross-reaction of the anti-oestradiol serum was below 1% with oestrone or oestriol, and below 0.10% with testosterone, androstenedione, progesterone, 1 7a-hydroxy progesterone and cortisol.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Plasma 17ft-oestradiol was determined by the solid-phase radioimmunoassay reported by Abraham (1969). Determinations were performed in triplicate on O· 5-ml aliquots of plasma and the values obtained were corrected for extraction losses.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%