A rapid method to determine plasma homocysteine concentration and enrichment by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Valerio ◽  
Goretta Baldo ◽  
Paolo Tessari
Keyword(s):  
Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Gas Chromatography ◽  
Rapid Method ◽  
Plasma Homocysteine ◽  
Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Homocysteine Concentration ◽  
Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Plasma Homocysteine Concentration

scholarly journals Comparison of Three Different Plasma Homocysteine Assays with Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry

1999 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 670-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan B Ubbink ◽  
Rhena Delport ◽  
Reiner Riezler ◽  
WJ Hayward Vermaak
Keyword(s):  
Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Gas Chromatography ◽  
Plasma Homocysteine ◽  
Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Negative Bias ◽  
Positive Bias ◽  
Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay ◽  
Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Methionine Load ◽  
Plasma Thcy

Abstract Background: Various methods are available to measure plasma total homocyst(e)ine (tHcy) concentrations, but whether plasma tHcy assays may be used interchangeably is not known. Methods: Results from three different methods [HPLC with fluorescence detection, enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA)] to determine fasting (n = 163) and post-methionine load (n = 80) plasma tHcy concentrations were compared with those obtained by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Difference plots on non-transformed and log-transformed data were used to assess the agreement between HPLC and GC-MS, EIA and GC-MS, and FPIA and GC-MS. Results: The closest agreement between methods was observed between GC-MS and FPIA for fasting tHcy concentrations, with 95% of the FPIA values between 19% above and 24% below the corresponding GC-MS results. Post-methionine load tHcy concentrations measured by EIA showed the least agreement with GC-MS, with 95% of values measured by EIA ranging between 52% above and 16% below the GC-MS values. With respect to GC-MS, the above-mentioned methods showed a negative bias for fasting tHcy concentrations, but a positive bias for both immunoassays for post-methionine load tHcy concentrations. Conclusions: The agreement among methods is insufficient to allow them to be used interchangeably. The intermethod differences emphasize the need for standardization of plasma tHcy assays.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document