Differential reactivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol methods to LDL and VLDL subfractions, as demonstrated by ultracentrifugation and HPLC

Shinichi Usui, Hajime Kakuuchi, Motoi Okamoto, Yuki Mizukami, Mitsuyo Okazaki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The analytical and clinical performance of homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays has been reported, but their reactions with subfractions of LDL and VLDL have not been described in detail. Methods: We evaluated reaction selectivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays, LDLk (Kyowa Medex) and LDLd (Daiichi Pure Chemical), with ultracentrifugally isolated VLDL and LDL subfractions to identify the lipoprotein particles from which the cholesterol recognized by these assays originates. Results: The LDLd (y) and LDLk (x) methods correlated highly for whole serum samples: y = 0.986x - 39.5 mg/L (r = 0.966; n = 34). In isolated VLDL, the LDLk and the LDLd methods recovered 17.3% and 23.8% of cholesterol, respectively; but correlation analysis revealed differential reactivity to small and large VLDL particles. For the isolated LDL subfraction of density 1.019-1.040 kg/L, the LDLd method had significantly higher reactivity (95.6-98.7%) than the LDLk (88.4-92.0%). Both methods, however, demonstrated poor recovery (∼50%) for the 1.050-1.063 kg/L fraction, indicating incomplete reactivity with small, dense LDL. Reactivity with lipoprotein(a) was better (71.2-90.8%) for both methods than with small LDL. For intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), there was no significant difference in recovery between the two methods (71.7% for LDLk and 68.9% for LDLd), but the LDLk method appeared to be more sensitive to IDL particle size. Conclusions: The two homogeneous assays for LDLcholesterol demonstrate only partial reactivity to small, dense LDL and nonspecific reactions to VLDL particles. Modification will be required in the homogeneous methods to obtain LDL-cholesterol values equivalent to those obtained by ultracentrifugation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1946-1954
Number of pages9
JournalClinical Chemistry
Volume48
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - Nov 1 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ultracentrifugation
LDL Cholesterol
High Pressure Liquid Chromatography
Assays
IDL Lipoproteins
Cholesterol
Recovery
Lipoprotein(a)
Lipoproteins
oxidized low density lipoprotein
Particle size
Particle Size

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Biochemistry

Cite this

Differential reactivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol methods to LDL and VLDL subfractions, as demonstrated by ultracentrifugation and HPLC. / Usui, Shinichi; Kakuuchi, Hajime; Okamoto, Motoi; Mizukami, Yuki; Okazaki, Mitsuyo.

In: Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 48, No. 11, 01.11.2002, p. 1946-1954.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Usui, Shinichi ; Kakuuchi, Hajime ; Okamoto, Motoi ; Mizukami, Yuki ; Okazaki, Mitsuyo. / Differential reactivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol methods to LDL and VLDL subfractions, as demonstrated by ultracentrifugation and HPLC. In: Clinical Chemistry. 2002 ; Vol. 48, No. 11. pp. 1946-1954.
@article{d2dcf59794d94148af8ccd6b02722298,
title = "Differential reactivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol methods to LDL and VLDL subfractions, as demonstrated by ultracentrifugation and HPLC",
abstract = "Background: The analytical and clinical performance of homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays has been reported, but their reactions with subfractions of LDL and VLDL have not been described in detail. Methods: We evaluated reaction selectivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays, LDLk (Kyowa Medex) and LDLd (Daiichi Pure Chemical), with ultracentrifugally isolated VLDL and LDL subfractions to identify the lipoprotein particles from which the cholesterol recognized by these assays originates. Results: The LDLd (y) and LDLk (x) methods correlated highly for whole serum samples: y = 0.986x - 39.5 mg/L (r = 0.966; n = 34). In isolated VLDL, the LDLk and the LDLd methods recovered 17.3{\%} and 23.8{\%} of cholesterol, respectively; but correlation analysis revealed differential reactivity to small and large VLDL particles. For the isolated LDL subfraction of density 1.019-1.040 kg/L, the LDLd method had significantly higher reactivity (95.6-98.7{\%}) than the LDLk (88.4-92.0{\%}). Both methods, however, demonstrated poor recovery (∼50{\%}) for the 1.050-1.063 kg/L fraction, indicating incomplete reactivity with small, dense LDL. Reactivity with lipoprotein(a) was better (71.2-90.8{\%}) for both methods than with small LDL. For intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), there was no significant difference in recovery between the two methods (71.7{\%} for LDLk and 68.9{\%} for LDLd), but the LDLk method appeared to be more sensitive to IDL particle size. Conclusions: The two homogeneous assays for LDLcholesterol demonstrate only partial reactivity to small, dense LDL and nonspecific reactions to VLDL particles. Modification will be required in the homogeneous methods to obtain LDL-cholesterol values equivalent to those obtained by ultracentrifugation.",
author = "Shinichi Usui and Hajime Kakuuchi and Motoi Okamoto and Yuki Mizukami and Mitsuyo Okazaki",
year = "2002",
month = "11",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "1946--1954",
journal = "Clinical Chemistry",
issn = "0009-9147",
publisher = "American Association for Clinical Chemistry Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differential reactivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol methods to LDL and VLDL subfractions, as demonstrated by ultracentrifugation and HPLC

AU - Usui, Shinichi

AU - Kakuuchi, Hajime

AU - Okamoto, Motoi

AU - Mizukami, Yuki

AU - Okazaki, Mitsuyo

PY - 2002/11/1

Y1 - 2002/11/1

N2 - Background: The analytical and clinical performance of homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays has been reported, but their reactions with subfractions of LDL and VLDL have not been described in detail. Methods: We evaluated reaction selectivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays, LDLk (Kyowa Medex) and LDLd (Daiichi Pure Chemical), with ultracentrifugally isolated VLDL and LDL subfractions to identify the lipoprotein particles from which the cholesterol recognized by these assays originates. Results: The LDLd (y) and LDLk (x) methods correlated highly for whole serum samples: y = 0.986x - 39.5 mg/L (r = 0.966; n = 34). In isolated VLDL, the LDLk and the LDLd methods recovered 17.3% and 23.8% of cholesterol, respectively; but correlation analysis revealed differential reactivity to small and large VLDL particles. For the isolated LDL subfraction of density 1.019-1.040 kg/L, the LDLd method had significantly higher reactivity (95.6-98.7%) than the LDLk (88.4-92.0%). Both methods, however, demonstrated poor recovery (∼50%) for the 1.050-1.063 kg/L fraction, indicating incomplete reactivity with small, dense LDL. Reactivity with lipoprotein(a) was better (71.2-90.8%) for both methods than with small LDL. For intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), there was no significant difference in recovery between the two methods (71.7% for LDLk and 68.9% for LDLd), but the LDLk method appeared to be more sensitive to IDL particle size. Conclusions: The two homogeneous assays for LDLcholesterol demonstrate only partial reactivity to small, dense LDL and nonspecific reactions to VLDL particles. Modification will be required in the homogeneous methods to obtain LDL-cholesterol values equivalent to those obtained by ultracentrifugation.

AB - Background: The analytical and clinical performance of homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays has been reported, but their reactions with subfractions of LDL and VLDL have not been described in detail. Methods: We evaluated reaction selectivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol assays, LDLk (Kyowa Medex) and LDLd (Daiichi Pure Chemical), with ultracentrifugally isolated VLDL and LDL subfractions to identify the lipoprotein particles from which the cholesterol recognized by these assays originates. Results: The LDLd (y) and LDLk (x) methods correlated highly for whole serum samples: y = 0.986x - 39.5 mg/L (r = 0.966; n = 34). In isolated VLDL, the LDLk and the LDLd methods recovered 17.3% and 23.8% of cholesterol, respectively; but correlation analysis revealed differential reactivity to small and large VLDL particles. For the isolated LDL subfraction of density 1.019-1.040 kg/L, the LDLd method had significantly higher reactivity (95.6-98.7%) than the LDLk (88.4-92.0%). Both methods, however, demonstrated poor recovery (∼50%) for the 1.050-1.063 kg/L fraction, indicating incomplete reactivity with small, dense LDL. Reactivity with lipoprotein(a) was better (71.2-90.8%) for both methods than with small LDL. For intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), there was no significant difference in recovery between the two methods (71.7% for LDLk and 68.9% for LDLd), but the LDLk method appeared to be more sensitive to IDL particle size. Conclusions: The two homogeneous assays for LDLcholesterol demonstrate only partial reactivity to small, dense LDL and nonspecific reactions to VLDL particles. Modification will be required in the homogeneous methods to obtain LDL-cholesterol values equivalent to those obtained by ultracentrifugation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036841418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036841418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 1946

EP - 1954

JO - Clinical Chemistry

JF - Clinical Chemistry

SN - 0009-9147

IS - 11

ER -