Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of assay methods for quantifying sex hormone concentrations across the menstrual cycle in rhesus macaques
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of assay methods for quantifying sex hormone concentrations across the menstrual cycle in rhesus macaques
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of assay methods for quantifying sex hormone concentrations across the menstrual cycle in rhesus macaques
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of assay methods for quantifying sex hormone concentrations across the menstrual cycle in rhesus macaques
2024
Overview
Immunoassays have been the preferred method for steroid hormone analysis for more than 50 years. Automated immunoassays (AIAs) offer high throughput, rapid data turnaround, and low cost for measuring steroid hormone concentrations. The application of liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for steroid quantification provides greater specificity and selectivity for individual steroids, the ability to simultaneously analyze multiple steroids, and high throughput and automation. We compared AIA and LC-MS/MS for analysis of 17beta-estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4) over the course of several menstrual cycles in 12 rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Serum samples were collected every 4 days across four menstrual cycles from each monkey. AIAs were performed on a Roche cobas e411 analyzer. LC-MS/MS analysis was performed on a Shimadzu-Nexera-LCMS-8060 instrument. Scatter plots with Passing–Bablok regression showed excellent agreement between AIA and LC-MS/MS for both E2 and P4. Bland–Altman plots revealed no bias for either method; however, AIA overestimated E2 at concentrations >140 pg/ml and underestimated P4 at concentrations >4 ng/ml compared to LC-MS/MS. A comparison of testosterone concentrations measured by AIA and LC-MS/MS in the same samples was also performed. In contrast to E2 and P4, AIA and LC-MS/MS yielded significantly different results for testosterone concentrations, with AIA consistently underestimating concentrations relative to those obtained by LC-MS/MS. Well-characterized automated immunoassays are an excellent tool for daily monitoring of monkey menstrual cycles or providing single data points requiring fast turnaround. In certain situations where AIAs may provide inaccurate estimations of E2 and P4 concentrations, LC-MS/MS assays are preferable.
Well-characterized automated immunoassays are an excellent tool for daily monitoring of monkey menstrual cycles or providing single data points requiring fast turnaround.
Publisher
Oxford University Press
