These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of a radioallergosorbent (RAST) inhibition method and a monoclonal enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for aeroallergen measurement.
    Author: Renström A, Gordon S, Larsson PH, Tee RD, Newman Taylor AJ, Malmberg P.
    Journal: Clin Exp Allergy; 1997 Nov; 27(11):1314-21. PubMed ID: 9420136.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Mouse and rat urinary proteins are potent occupational allergens for exposed personnel. Methods of measuring airborne allergens differ greatly, and reported levels of allergens vary considerably between laboratories. OBJECTIVES: To compare the values obtained using two different methods of allergen detection. METHODS: Air samples were collected in rat rooms in Sweden and the United Kingdom at 2 L/min on to polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filters and extracted in buffer containing 0.5% v/v Tween 20. Airborne rat urinary allergen (RUA) was measured in all samples by both RAST inhibition using a polyclonal human serum pool (UK) and a two monoclonal antibody sandwich ELISA employing antibodies specific for Rat n 1.02 (alpha2u-globulin) (Sweden). RESULTS: The two methods gave values which were correlated (r2 log values = 0.72, P<0.0001), but differed by several orders of magnitude (median [range] ratio of RAST inhibition/ELISA = 316 [7-26(80)]. There was a systematic bias: as the absolute values increased, the difference in the measurements increased. The rat urine standards used were antigenically similar. CONCLUSIONS: A large contrast in RUA values obtained from the two assays was observed in this study. This may be primarily due to methodological differences, but variations in antibody specificities or composition of allergenic epitopes in the air samples may contribute. The results demonstrate that standardization of methods and antibodies is necessary before interlaboratory comparisons can be made.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]