Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparative Analysis of Commercial Immunoassays for the Determination of Total, Intact, and Nonintact Luteinizing Hormone in Urine
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?
Comparative Analysis of Commercial Immunoassays for the Determination of Total, Intact, and Nonintact Luteinizing Hormone in Urine
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparative Analysis of Commercial Immunoassays for the Determination of Total, Intact, and Nonintact Luteinizing Hormone in Urine
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
Comparative Analysis of Commercial Immunoassays for the Determination of Total, Intact, and Nonintact Luteinizing Hormone in Urine
2024
Overview
Background In our recent publications, we reported the identification of three different molecular forms of total luteinizing hormone (LH) in urine, the intact LH, the free beta‐subunit (LHβ), and its core fragment of LHβ (LHβcf), the latter two establishing the nonintact portion of LH. Following the discontinuation of the Delfia immunofluorometric assay (IFMA) (Wallac, PerkinElmer Finland, Finland), a leading method for detecting urinary LH for 30 years, this study seeks to assess the efficacy of three alternative commercial immunoassays in identifying various forms of U‐LH. Methods Diluted urine samples underwent gel filtration to separate them into fractions, each containing different forms of LH. These were then assayed using Delfia IFMA, Architect LH (Abbott, USA), Elecsys LH Cobas (Roche, Switzerland), and Immulite 2000 LH (Siemens, Germany) immunoassays. Results Both Delfia and Immulite assays detected total U‐LH, that is, all three forms of U‐LH, including intact LH, LHβ, and LHβcf. Cobas detected only intact LH and LHβ, whereas Architect detected solely the intact LH. Conclusions Immulite assay can be an alternative tool to detect all forms of urinary LH, a feature likely to be instrumental in developing noninvasive, practical, and scalable solutions for evaluating total U‐LH changes during minipuberty in neonates, during the onset of central puberty in peripubertal children, puberty‐associated disorders in adolescents, and the fertility window in women, with a special focus on postpeak changes. In our study, we evaluated alternative assays to replace a discontinued method for detecting all forms of urinary LH, including its degradation products. By analyzing LH in gel‐filtrated urine samples, we assessed the comprehensive detection capabilities of various diagnostic tests. Our novel findings revealed diverse fields of utility for different assays, offering a nuanced understanding of their specific clinical applications as choosing the correct assay with an informed decision would facilitate enhanced clinical practice in investigating minipuberty in neonates, the onset of central puberty in peripubertal children, puberty‐associated disorders in adolescents, and the fertility window in women, with a particular emphasis on postpeak changes.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc
