Urine protein electrophoresis and immunoelectrophoresis using unconcentrated or minimally concentrated urine samples

Anja Roden, Karen S. Lockington, Linda J. Tostrud, Jerry A. Katzmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Our objective was to evaluate a gel system that uses unconcentrated urine specimens for protein electrophoresis (PEL) and immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) in patients with monoclonal gammopathies. For the study, 222 urine specimens were analyzed by our current PEL method (Helena Laboratories, Beaumont, TX) and by a system that recommends use of unconcentrated urine (Sebia, Norcross, GA). M protein concentrations were compared in the 43 cases with a measurable M spike. IFE was performed on 111 of the samples using both methods. There was a 97% concordance for detection of PEL abnormalities. The concordance for IFE was 98%. M protein concentrations by the 2 methods correlated well (r 2 = 0.99; slope, 1.04). Cases with insufficient urine volumes for concentration (PEL, 7; IFE, 20) were analyzed in the Sebia gel system, and in 11 cases (PEL, 2; IFE, 9) an M protein was identified. High-resolution gel electrophoresis of urine using the Sebia system offers similar performance for detection, characterization, and quantification of M proteins when compared with our current gel system. Testing unconcentrated urine specimens will mean fewer sample rejections owing to insufficient sample volume.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)141-145
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology
Volume130
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2008

Fingerprint

Immunoelectrophoresis
Electrophoresis
Urine
Proteins
Gels
Paraproteinemias

Keywords

  • Immunoelectrophoresis
  • Immunofixation
  • M protein
  • Monoclonal gammopathy
  • Protein electrophoresis
  • Unconcentrated urine
  • Urine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Urine protein electrophoresis and immunoelectrophoresis using unconcentrated or minimally concentrated urine samples. / Roden, Anja; Lockington, Karen S.; Tostrud, Linda J.; Katzmann, Jerry A.

In: American Journal of Clinical Pathology, Vol. 130, No. 1, 01.07.2008, p. 141-145.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Roden, Anja ; Lockington, Karen S. ; Tostrud, Linda J. ; Katzmann, Jerry A. / Urine protein electrophoresis and immunoelectrophoresis using unconcentrated or minimally concentrated urine samples. In: American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2008 ; Vol. 130, No. 1. pp. 141-145.
@article{ee0920e2a8524dfdae8b9feb35cd24a8,
title = "Urine protein electrophoresis and immunoelectrophoresis using unconcentrated or minimally concentrated urine samples",
abstract = "Our objective was to evaluate a gel system that uses unconcentrated urine specimens for protein electrophoresis (PEL) and immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) in patients with monoclonal gammopathies. For the study, 222 urine specimens were analyzed by our current PEL method (Helena Laboratories, Beaumont, TX) and by a system that recommends use of unconcentrated urine (Sebia, Norcross, GA). M protein concentrations were compared in the 43 cases with a measurable M spike. IFE was performed on 111 of the samples using both methods. There was a 97{\%} concordance for detection of PEL abnormalities. The concordance for IFE was 98{\%}. M protein concentrations by the 2 methods correlated well (r 2 = 0.99; slope, 1.04). Cases with insufficient urine volumes for concentration (PEL, 7; IFE, 20) were analyzed in the Sebia gel system, and in 11 cases (PEL, 2; IFE, 9) an M protein was identified. High-resolution gel electrophoresis of urine using the Sebia system offers similar performance for detection, characterization, and quantification of M proteins when compared with our current gel system. Testing unconcentrated urine specimens will mean fewer sample rejections owing to insufficient sample volume.",
keywords = "Immunoelectrophoresis, Immunofixation, M protein, Monoclonal gammopathy, Protein electrophoresis, Unconcentrated urine, Urine",
author = "Anja Roden and Lockington, {Karen S.} and Tostrud, {Linda J.} and Katzmann, {Jerry A.}",
year = "2008",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1309/6K33KTFA7A5VUQ1T",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "130",
pages = "141--145",
journal = "American Journal of Clinical Pathology",
issn = "0002-9173",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Pathologists",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Urine protein electrophoresis and immunoelectrophoresis using unconcentrated or minimally concentrated urine samples

AU - Roden, Anja

AU - Lockington, Karen S.

AU - Tostrud, Linda J.

AU - Katzmann, Jerry A.

PY - 2008/7/1

Y1 - 2008/7/1

N2 - Our objective was to evaluate a gel system that uses unconcentrated urine specimens for protein electrophoresis (PEL) and immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) in patients with monoclonal gammopathies. For the study, 222 urine specimens were analyzed by our current PEL method (Helena Laboratories, Beaumont, TX) and by a system that recommends use of unconcentrated urine (Sebia, Norcross, GA). M protein concentrations were compared in the 43 cases with a measurable M spike. IFE was performed on 111 of the samples using both methods. There was a 97% concordance for detection of PEL abnormalities. The concordance for IFE was 98%. M protein concentrations by the 2 methods correlated well (r 2 = 0.99; slope, 1.04). Cases with insufficient urine volumes for concentration (PEL, 7; IFE, 20) were analyzed in the Sebia gel system, and in 11 cases (PEL, 2; IFE, 9) an M protein was identified. High-resolution gel electrophoresis of urine using the Sebia system offers similar performance for detection, characterization, and quantification of M proteins when compared with our current gel system. Testing unconcentrated urine specimens will mean fewer sample rejections owing to insufficient sample volume.

AB - Our objective was to evaluate a gel system that uses unconcentrated urine specimens for protein electrophoresis (PEL) and immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) in patients with monoclonal gammopathies. For the study, 222 urine specimens were analyzed by our current PEL method (Helena Laboratories, Beaumont, TX) and by a system that recommends use of unconcentrated urine (Sebia, Norcross, GA). M protein concentrations were compared in the 43 cases with a measurable M spike. IFE was performed on 111 of the samples using both methods. There was a 97% concordance for detection of PEL abnormalities. The concordance for IFE was 98%. M protein concentrations by the 2 methods correlated well (r 2 = 0.99; slope, 1.04). Cases with insufficient urine volumes for concentration (PEL, 7; IFE, 20) were analyzed in the Sebia gel system, and in 11 cases (PEL, 2; IFE, 9) an M protein was identified. High-resolution gel electrophoresis of urine using the Sebia system offers similar performance for detection, characterization, and quantification of M proteins when compared with our current gel system. Testing unconcentrated urine specimens will mean fewer sample rejections owing to insufficient sample volume.

KW - Immunoelectrophoresis

KW - Immunofixation

KW - M protein

KW - Monoclonal gammopathy

KW - Protein electrophoresis

KW - Unconcentrated urine

KW - Urine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=48249133709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=48249133709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1309/6K33KTFA7A5VUQ1T

DO - 10.1309/6K33KTFA7A5VUQ1T

M3 - Article

C2 - 18550484

AN - SCOPUS:48249133709

VL - 130

SP - 141

EP - 145

JO - American Journal of Clinical Pathology

JF - American Journal of Clinical Pathology

SN - 0002-9173

IS - 1

ER -