Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Two International Round-Robin Studies Showed Good Comparability of 5-Methyltetrahydrofolate but Poor Comparability of Folic Acid Measured in Serum by Different High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Methods.
Fazili, Zia; Sternberg, Maya R; Paladugula, Neelima; Pfeiffer, Christine M.
Afiliação
  • Fazili Z; Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Sternberg MR; Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Paladugula N; Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Pfeiffer CM; Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA cfp8@cdc.gov.
J Nutr ; 147(9): 1815-1825, 2017 09.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28768831
Background: Serum folate methods produce different results. The comparability of HPLC-mass spectrometry (MS)/MS methods is not well documented.Objective: We conducted an international "round-robin" investigation to assess the comparability, precision, and accuracy of serum folate HPLC-MS/MS methods.Methods: The CDC laboratory, 7 laboratories with independently developed methods (group 1), and 6 laboratories with an adapted CDC method (group 2) analyzed folate forms in 6 serum pools and 6 calibrators from the CDC (duplicate analysis over 2 d) and in two 3-level reference materials (duplicate analysis).Results: All laboratories measured 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-methylTHF) and folic acid; some measured additional folate forms. The geometric mean (range) concentrations (nanomoles per liter) for 5-methylTHF in the 6 serum pools were 18.3 nmol/L (CDC), 13.8-28.9 nmol/L (group 1), and 16.8-18.6 nmol/L (group 2); for folic acid the concentrations were 3.42 nmol/L (CDC), 1.09-4.74 nmol/L (group 1), and 1.74-2.90 nmol/L (group 2). The median imprecision (CV) for 5-methylTHF was 4.1% (CDC), 4.6-11% (group 1), and 1.7-6.0% (group 2); for folic acid it was 6.9% (CDC), 4.9-20% (group 1), and 3.9-23% (group 2). The mean ± SD (range) recovery of 5-methylTHF spiked into serum was 98% ± 27% (59-138%) for group 1 and 98% ± 10% (82-111%) for group 2; for folic acid it was 93% ± 29% (67-198%) for group 1 and 81% ± 16% (64-102%) for group 2. The mean relative bias for 5-methylTHF compared with the reference material certificate value was 12% (CDC), -24% to 30% (group 1), and -0.6% to 16% (group 2); for folic acid it was 73% (CDC), -47% to 578% (group 1), and -3.3% to 67% (group 2).Conclusions: For 5-methylTHF, group 2 laboratories demonstrated better agreement and precision, less variable spiking recovery, and less bias by using a reference material. Laboratory performance for folic acid was highly variable and needs improvement. Certified reference materials for serum folate forms and total folate are needed to improve method accuracy.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Estado Nutricional / Cromatografia Líquida de Alta Pressão / Espectrometria de Massas em Tandem / Ácido Fólico Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Nutr Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Estado Nutricional / Cromatografia Líquida de Alta Pressão / Espectrometria de Massas em Tandem / Ácido Fólico Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Nutr Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article