Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Investigation of interference from canine anti-mouse antibodies in hormone immunoassays.
Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences, Clinical Chemistry.
Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
2019 (English)In: Veterinary clinical pathology, ISSN 0275-6382, E-ISSN 1939-165XArticle in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Canine anti-mouse antibodies are a potential source of immunoassay interference, but erroneous immunoassay results are not always easily identifiable. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is a marker for the presence of gonads in dogs, but elevated AMH concentrations in neutered dogs could also be caused by antibody interference. For other assays, a discrepant result obtained after antibody precipitation might indicate antibody interference.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate if canine anti-mouse antibodies are a source of erroneous results in the AMH assay and if antibody precipitation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a useful tool for detecting antibody interference in a variety of immunoassays used in the veterinary clinical laboratory.

METHODS: Twenty-nine positive and 25 negative samples for anti-mouse antibodies were analyzed for AMH, canine total thyroxine (TT4 ), canine thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and progesterone before and after treatment with PEG. Results that differed by more than four SDs from the intra-assay coefficients of variation were considered discrepant. Elevated AMH concentrations in neutered dogs with anti-mouse antibodies and no visible gonads present were considered evidence of interference.

RESULTS: Evidence of antibody interference was found in two samples analyzed for AMH. The presence of anti-mouse antibodies did not lead to a higher proportion of discrepant results after PEG treatment for any of the immunoassays. The overall incidence of discrepant results for healthy controls was very high (73%).

CONCLUSIONS: Canine anti-mouse antibodies are a source of erroneous AMH results. Antibody precipitation with PEG is not a useful tool for detecting interference caused by such antibodies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019.
Keywords [en]
PEG, anti-Müllerian hormone, antibody, canine, polyethylene glycol
National Category
Clinical Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-389639DOI: 10.1111/vcp.12764PubMedID: 31318069OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-389639DiVA, id: diva2:1338041
Available from: 2019-07-19 Created: 2019-07-19 Last updated: 2019-07-19

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
By organisation
Clinical Chemistry
In the same journal
Veterinary clinical pathology
Clinical Science

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 131 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf