Macroprolactin over time: Is there any point in rechecking it in people with a persistently elevated serum prolactin?

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: Macroprolactinemia may influence the interpretation of serum prolactin levels-a recognised phenomenon since 1981. The degree of macroprolactinaemia over time is less well described. We determined how macroprolactin status (based on polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation) varied by analysing serial measurements in hyperprolactinaemic individuals over a period of 9 years. PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Results from 1810 individuals were included. All serum total prolactin results (measured using Roche Cobas 8000 analyser) were extracted from the laboratory information system for the period 1 January 2012 to 1 April 2021, along with relevant patient demographic/test data. Samples with a macroprolactin screening test performed (on samples with prolactin > 700 miu/L) were included in the main analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 2782 macroprolactin checks were performed (12.5% of all prolactin tests) in 1810 individuals (599 males/2183 females, median-age: 35, interquartile range: 25-47, range: 16-93 years). Multiple macroprolactin checks were carried out on 465 patients (1437 measurements) with 94 patients (141 measurements) screening positive (<60% recovery). Only 19 patients (18 female) had at least one result above and one below the 60% screening cut-off, with 10 of these patients having results close to the 60% cut-off; in 9 patients, results were clearly different between repeat samples. In seven cases, the adjusted monomeric prolactin showed a potentially clinically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, only 19/465 patients appeared to change macroprolactin status based on a 60% PEG recovery cut-off. The majority of these 19 patients were on antipsychotic/antidepressant medication(s) or had a prolactinoma; in only 7 did monomeric prolactin change significantly. This suggests that once macroprolactin status has been determined, clinical decision making is rarely affected by repeating it.

Macroprolactin in mothers and their babies: what is its origin?

OBJECTIVES: Macroprolactinemia is one of the major causes of hyperprolactinemia. The aim of this study was to clarify the origin of macroprolactin (macro-PRL). METHODS: We examined macro-PRL in the sera of 826 pregnant women and in those of their babies' umbilical cords at delivery. Macro-PRL was evaluated by precipitation with polyethylene glycol (PEG), gel filtration chromatography (GFC), and absorption with protein G (PG). RESULTS: We detected macro-PRL in 16 out of the 826 pregnant women (1.94 %) and in 14 of their babies, which may indicate the possibility of hereditary origin of macro-PRL. However, the macro-PRL ratios of the babies correlated positively with those of their mothers (r=0.72 for GFC, p<0.001 and r=0.77 for PG, p<0.001), suggesting that the immunoglobulin (Ig)G-type anti-PRL autoantibodies might be actively transferred to babies via the placenta and form macro-PRL by binding to their babies' PRL or PRL-IgG complexes may possibly pass through the placenta. There were two cases in which only mothers had macro-PRL, indicating that the mothers had autoantibodies that did not pass through the placenta, such as IgA, PRL bound to the other proteins or PRL aggregates. No cases were found in which only the babies had macro-PRL and their mothers did not, suggesting that macro-PRL might not arise by non-hereditary congenital causes. CONCLUSIONS: Macro-PRL in women of reproductive age might be mostly IgG-type anti-PRL autoantibody-bound PRL. The likely origin of macro-PRL in babies is the transplacental transfer of IgG-type anti-PRL autoantibodies or PRL-IgG complexes from the mothers to their babies.

The relationship between plasma prolactin levels and clinical manifestations with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic prolactin levels have been found to increase in 19 patients diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD). However, the relationship between plasma prolactin levels and clinical manifestations in NMOSD patients remains unclear. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted as part of a Registered Cohort Study of Inflammatory Demyelination Disease (NCT04386018). A total of 95 patients diagnosed with central nervous system demyelinating diseases and 43 healthy controls were recruited between May 2020 and February 2022 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University. Plasma samples were collected from all participants and analyzed for prolactin levels using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. The study aimed to investigate the correlation between plasma prolactin levels and clinical features in patients with central nervous system demyelinating diseases. RESULTS: Plasma prolactin levels in NMOSD patients were significantly higher than those in multiple sclerosis/myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated diseases patients and controls (p<0.05, respectively), and were found to be correlated with disease activity, sensory abnormalities, thoracic spinal cord lesions, and MR lesion enhancement (p<0.05). A total of 16.28% of NMOSD patients exhibited macroprolactinemia. However, there was no correlation found between macroprolactin levels and disease activity (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Prolactin may play a role in the pro-inflammatory regulation mechanism of NMOSD.

Cross-reactivity in assays for prolactin and optimum screening policy for macroprolactinaemia.

OBJECTIVES: Macroprolactin cross-reacts in immunoassays for prolactin causing apparent hyperprolactinaemia (macroprolactinaemia) and consequent misdiagnosis and mismanagement of patients. METHODS: We determined the prevalence of macroprolactinaemia using prolactin immunoassays with reported "high" (Tosoh) or "low" cross-reactivity (Roche) with macroprolactin. We additionally modelled the effects of increasing the screening threshold on workload and sensitivity in the detection of macroprolactinaemia. RESULTS: A review of routine requests for prolactin received in a 12 month period identified 670 sera with hyperprolactinaemia (Tosoh assay). Treatment with polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation demonstrated normal levels of monomeric prolactin in 165 sera (24.6%) indicating macroprolactinaemia. In the macroprolactinaemic cohort, total prolactin levels were lower with the Roche assay (473 ± 132 mU/L; mean ± SD) compared to the Tosoh assay (683 ± 217 mU/L), p < 0.005. The prevalence of macroprolactinaemia was also lower with the Roche assay (6.2%). The number of samples that required screening for macroprolactinaemia fell by 14% when Roche gender specific total prolactin reference limits were applied. Use of a higher screening threshold (700 mU/L) reduced the screening workload considerably (Roche by 45%, Tosoh by 37%) however, the sensitivity of detection of macroprolactinaemia decreased markedly (Roche 90%, Tosoh 59%). CONCLUSIONS: Macroprolactin interferes in both Tosoh and Roche prolactin immunoassays. Use of an assay with a relatively low cross reactivity with macroprolactin, e.g. Roche, will lead to a modest reduction in the screening workload. Increasing the screening threshold above the upper limit of the assay reference interval will also reduce the screening workload but leads to disproportionate increases in the number of cases of macroprolactinaemia which are missed.

Interference by macroprolactin in assays for prolactin: will the In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation lead to a solution at last?

Cross reactivity with high molecular weight complexes of prolactin known as macroprolactin is a common cause of positive interference in assays for serum prolactin. All prolactin assays currently available are affected with 5-25% of results indicating hyperprolactinaemia falsely elevated due to macroprolactinaemia - hyperprolactinaemia due to macroprolactin with normal concentrations of bioactive monomeric prolactin. Macroprolactinaemia has no pathological significance but, if it is not recognised as the cause, the apparent hyperprolactinaemia can lead to clinical confusion, unnecessary further investigations, inappropriate treatment and waste of healthcare resources. Macroprolactinaemia cannot be distinguished from true hyperprolactinaemia on clinical grounds alone but can be detected by a simple laboratory test based on the precipitation of macroprolactin with polyethylene glycol. Laboratory screening of all cases of hyperprolactinaemia to exclude macroprolactinaemia has been advised as best practice but has not been implemented universally and reports of clinical confusion caused by macroprolactinaemia continue to appear in the literature. Information provided by manufacturers to users of assays for prolactin regarding interference by macroprolactin is absent or inadequate and does not comply with the European Union Regulation covering in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR). As the IVDR is implemented notified bodies should insist that manufacturers of assays for serum prolactin comply with the regulations by informing users that macroprolactin is a source of interference which may have untoward clinical consequences and by providing an estimate of the magnitude of the interference and a means of detecting macroprolactinaemia. Laboratories should institute a policy for excluding macroprolactinaemia in all cases of hyperprolactinaemia.

Macroprolactinaemia modulates cardiometabolic effects of fenofibrate in men with atherogenic dyslipidaemia: A pilot study.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Cardiometabolic effects of hypolipidaemic agents depend on plasma levels of monomeric prolactin. Although macroprolactinaemia seems to be associated with increased cardiometabolic risk, no previous study has investigated whether macroprolactinaemia modulates pleiotropic effects of hypolipidaemic agents. METHODS: The study population included two age-, weight-, blood pressure- and lipid-matched groups of men: 12 men with elevated levels of big-big prolactin and 16 men with prolactin levels within the reference range. Because of atherogenic dyslipidaemia, all subjects were treated for 6 months with fenofibrate (200 mg daily). Glucose homeostasis markers and plasma lipids, as well as plasma levels of uric acid, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), fibrinogen, homocysteine and 25-hydroxyvitamin D, were determined in patients at the beginning and at the end of the study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Men with elevated levels of big-big prolactin were characterized by higher levels of hsCRP and fibrinogen and lower levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D as well as decreased insulin sensitivity than subjects with prolactin levels within the reference range. In men without macroprolactinaemia, fenofibrate decreased circulating levels of total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, uric acid, hsCRP and fibrinogen, and increased concentrations of HDL cholesterol, homocysteine and 25-hydroxyvitamin D, as well as improved insulin sensitivity. In subjects with macroprolactinaemia, fenofibrate action was limited to the changes in HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, hsCRP and homocysteine. With the exception of homocysteine, cardiometabolic effects of fenofibrate were stronger in subjects without than in subjects with elevated levels of big-big prolactin. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The results of the study indicate that macroprolactinaemia exerts a negative impact on cardiometabolic effects of fenofibrate.

Observational studies on macroprolactin in a routine clinical laboratory.

BACKGROUND: It is now recommended that all samples with raised prolactin should be examined for the presence of macroprolactin. We performed a retrospective review of our experience of macroprolactin to determine the incidence and the natural history of macroprolactin. METHODS: A retrospective study of macroprolactin was made in a large clinical laboratory. Macroprolactin was measured on those samples where it is requested and where the total prolactin is >1000 mIU/L. Prolactin was measured using the Siemens Centaur and macroprolactin was measured following polyethylene glycol (PEG)-precipitation. RESULTS: The incidence of macroprolactin in samples where the total prolactin was >1000 mIU/L was 36/670 (5.4%). During this period, 12,064 samples were received for prolactin analysis. Over the period since 2006, 22 subjects had a sample with an isolated macroprolactin measurement followed by another sample without macroprolactin after a median period of 0.46 years. Twenty-five subjects had multiple consecutive measurements of macroprolactin lasting a median period of 2.1 years. Fourteen subjects had more than six samples which had been subjected to PEG precipitation. In these subjects, the reproducibility of PEG precipitation over a median of 6 years was 1.1% CV (recovery 75% [26-110] (median [range])). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of macroprolactin can change over time and we cannot advise that once a test for macroprolactinemia has been performed that it is not necessary to repeat the investigation if a subsequent sample is hyperprolactinemic; nor can one assume that macroprolactin will not develop even if it has been excluded previously.

Impact of macroprolactin on galactorrhea and the rate of patients possibly affected by macroprolactin.

The clinical influence of macroprolactin (MPRL) is not clearly understood and the rate of patients potentially affected by MPRL is unknown. We investigated the influence of MPRL on the onset of galactorrhea and estimated the rate of patients with a proportion of MPRL fraction that may possibly affect galactorrhea. Data of patients with obstetric or gynecological symptoms who had undergone PRL fractionation testing were retrospectively analyzed. To evaluate factors influencing galactorrhea, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed and the adjusted odds ratios of MPRL for galactorrhea were calculated. Cutoff values for the total PRL level and the proportion of MPRL fractions for galactorrhea were determined by ROC analysis using a multivariate logistic model. The prevalence of patients with a proportion of MPRL fraction greater than or equal to the cutoff value for galactorrhea was estimated. The median proportion of MPRL fraction was 30.1% and increased as PRL level increased. Total PRL and MPRL had a significant influence on the onset of galactorrhea and the adjusted odds ratio was 1.09 in total PRL and 0.94 in MPRL. The rate of patients with a proportion of MPRL fraction that may possibly affect galactorrhea was estimated to be 33.5% of the study population, and thus found to be twelve times or more the number of macroprolactinemia patients. Future prospects for hyperprolactinemia may require diagnostic criteria using free prolactin levels and so MPRL fraction measurement is important for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with obstetric and gynecological symptoms.

A New Method of Using Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Precipitation of Macroprolactin to Detect Genuine Hyperprolactinemia.

BACKGROUND: The most commonly used method of polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation for macroprolactinemia (MP) screening has some significant drawbacks. The aim of this study was to establish a new method using PEG for precipitation of macroprolactin (macroPRL) to detect genuine hyperprolactinemia (genuine HP). METHODS: The optimal PEG concentration for precipitation and the effect of PEG on the precipitation of PRL were analyzed to establish and optimize our PEG precipitation method. The PRL recovery rate and genuine HP detection rate were compared between our method and MP screening method. RESULTS: About 25% PEG6000 was determined to be the optimal PEG concentration for precipitation. Along with an increase in protein concentration in the PRL calibration solution, the PRL recovery rate after precipitation decreased gradually. The PRL recovery rate increased when the precipitation was carried out with diluted PRL calibration solution; the recovery rate reached greater than 90% after a 5-fold dilution of the calibration solution. The genuine HP detection rate and PRL recovery rate using our diluted serum PEG precipitation method were significantly higher than those obtained with the MP screening method. Our method successfully detected 31 cases of genuine HP, which was significantly higher than the detection rate obtained using the MP screening method (25 cases; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Precipitation using 5-fold diluted serum with 25% PEG6000 can effectively reduce the macroPRL concentration, increasing the PRL recovery rate and detection rate of genuine HP after precipitation, which is an effective and convenient method for the detection of genuine HP.

Diagnosis of hyperprolactinemia in women: A Position Statement from the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations (Febrasgo) and the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM).

Hyperprolactinemia is a frequent cause of menstrual irregularity, galactorrhea, hypogonadism, and infertility. The most common etiologies of hyperprolactinemia can be classified as physiological, pharmacological, and pathological. Among pathological conditions, it is essential to distinguish prolactinomas from other tumors and pituitary lesions presenting with hyperprolactinemia due to pituitary stalk disconnection. Proper investigation considering clinical data, laboratory tests, and, if necessary, imaging evaluation, is important to identify the correctcause of hyperprolactinemia and manage the patient properly. This position statement by the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations (Febrasgo) and Brazilian Societyof Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) addresses the recommendations for measurement of serum prolactin levels and the investigations of symptomatic and asymptomatic hyperprolactinemia and medication-induced hyperprolactinemia in women.

Macroprolactinemia: a mini-review and update on clinical practice.

Hyperprolactinemia is common among infertile patients, with up to 15%-20% of women with oligomenorrhea having hyperprolactinemia. Suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis via inhibition of pulsatile gonadotropin releasing hormone because of hyperprolactinemia is a common endocrine etiology of infertility. There are 3 forms of human prolactin (PRL): monomeric PRL, dimeric PRL, and macro-PRL. Also known as big-big PRL, macro-PRL has a molecular weight >150 kDa and normally comprises 5%-10% of circulating PRL. When the predominant form of circulating PRL is macro-PRL, macroprolactinemia is diagnosed. Among patients with hyperprolactinemia, 10%-46% have macroprolactinemia. Patients with macroprolactinemia are at risk of unnecessary pituitary imaging and treatment with dopamine agonists if not correctly diagnosed. Given the high prevalence of macroprolactinemia among patients with elevated PRL levels and the different management of patients with macroprolactinemia vs true monomeric hyperprolactinemia, all patients with persistently elevated PRL levels should be screened for macro-PRL.

Occurrence of macroprolactinemia in schizophrenia patients treated with risperidone or amisulpride.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate macroprolactinemia caused by antipsychotics and its clinical significance. METHODS: A total of 133 patients with schizophrenia were selected, all of whom were treated with either risperidone or amisulpride alone. The levels of total prolactin (T-PRL) and macroprolactin (MPRL) were measured before treatment as well as the second, fourth, and sixth weeks of treatment. RESULTS: After 2 weeks of treatment, 75.09% (100/133) of the patients met the diagnostic criteria for hyperprolactinemia, the incidence of macroprolactinemia was 43% (43/100), and MPRL levels were positively correlated T-PRL levels. CONCLUSION: Risperidone and amisulpride caused hyperprolactinemia and macroprolactinemia; thus, detection of MPRL in the clinical setting should be performed as this phenomenon appears early in treatment (the second week) and continues, that can avoid unnecessary examination and treatment for asymptomatic patients with macroprolactinemia.

Macroprolactin: From laboratory to clinical practice.

Prolactin measurement is very common in standard clinical practice. It is indicated not only in the study of pituitary adenomas, but also when there are problems with fertility, decreased libido, or menstrual disorders, among other problems. Inadequate interpretation of prolactin levels without contextualizing the laboratory results with the clinical, pharmacological, and gynecological/urological history of patients leads to erroneous diagnoses and, thus, to poorly based studies and treatments. Macroprolactinemia, defined as hyperprolactinemia due to excess macroprolactin (an isoform of a greater molecular weight than prolactin but with less biological activity), is one of the main causes of such erroneous diagnoses, resulting in poor patient management when not recognized. There is no unanimous agreement as to when macroprolactin screening is required in patients with hyperprolactinemia. At some institutions, macroprolactin testing by polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation is routinely performed in all patients with hyperprolactinemia, while others use a clinically based approach. There is also no consensus on how to express the results of prolactin/macroprolactin levels after PEG, which in some cases may lead to an erroneous interpretation of the results. The objectives of this study were: 1. To establish the strategy for macroprolactin screening by serum precipitation with PEG in patients with hyperprolactinemia: universal screening versus a strategy guided by the alert generated by the clinician based on the absence or presence of clinical symptoms or by the laboratory when hyperprolactinemia is detected. 2. To create a consensus document that standardizes the reporting of prolactin results after precipitation with PEG to minimize errors in the interpretation of the results, in line with international standards.

Persistent Idiopathic Prolactin Elevation Merits Macroprolactin Estimation: A Case Report and Review of Literature.

The prevalence of hyperprolactinemia ranges from about 0.4% in an unselected adult population to as high as 9%-17% in women with reproductive disorders. It may cause infertility in about 11% of the oligospermic males. Rarely, the cause of persistently elevated prolactin remains obscure even after thorough work up. Macroprolactinemia is biologically inactive, high-molecular-weight form of prolactin resulting from its binding to immunoglobulin G, causing a decrease in its clearance. We report the case of a 35-year-old female, detected to have hyperprolactinemia on multiple tests, during routine work up for primary infertility. Secondary causes for the same were ruled out. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain excluded a prolactinoma. This prompted an estimation of prolactin levels after polyethylene glycol precipitation which showed a decrease to 5.58 ng/mL, with <40% recovery, confirming the presence of macroprolactin. Thus, persistently elevated prolactin levels in the background of negative neurological imaging necessitate the estimation of macroprolactin.

Prevalence of Macroprolactinemia in People Detected to Have Hyperprolactinemia.

Background Macroprolactinemia is an analytic laboma encountered as a part of prolactin assay. No data are available on the burden of macroprolactinemia in Indians. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and predictors of macroprolactinemia among people with hyperprolactinemia. Methods Consecutive patients detected to have serum prolactin > 18 ng/mL as per the upper reference limit were further screened for macroprolactin by post-polyethylene-glycol (PEG)-precipitation test. Macroprolactinemia was defined as post-PEG recovery of prolactin < 40%. Results The four most common underlying etiologies for the testing of hyperprolactinemia were polycystic ovary syndrome ( n = 402; 32.71%), pituitary adenomas ( n = 318; 25.87%), drug-induced hyperprolactinemia ( n = 224; 18.23%), and infertility ( n = 126; 10.25%). A total of 1,229 patients (male:female = 191:1038) having mean age 30.46 ± 10.14 years had hyperprolactinemia, of which 168 (13.7%) were diagnosed to have macroprolactinemia. Macroprolactinemia was significantly higher in females than males (15.03 vs. 6.28%; p < 0.001). Age quartile-based analysis revealed no difference in occurrence of macroprolactinemia. Only 34 patients (2.76%) with macroprolactinemia (< 40% recovery of prolactin post-PEG precipitation) had raised prolactin levels after recovery. These patients primarily had underlying pituitary pathology. Conclusion Macroprolactinemia is not uncommon in people being tested for hyperprolactinemia. We should not hesitate to screen for macroprolactinemia in patients who have incidentally been detected to have hyperprolactinemia.

Antipsychotics-induced hyperprolactinemia and screening for macroprolactin.

INTRODUCTION: High prolactin (PRL) concentrations are found in laboratory test results of patients on majority of antipsychotic drugs. Prevalence rates and degrees of severity of hyperprolactinemia (HPRL) based on PRL concentration may depend on the presence of macroprolactin in the serum. The aim of the study was to investigate the difference between PRL concentrations before and after precipitation of macroprolactin and to examine if there were any changes in the categorization of HPRL between samples prior and after precipitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total of 98 female patients (median age 33; range 19-47 years) diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, proscribed antipsychotic drugs, and with HPRL were included. Total PRL concentration and PRL concentration after macroprolactin precipitation with polyethylene glycol (postPEG-PRL) were determined by the chemiluminometric method on the Beckman Coulter Access2 analyser. RESULTS: Total PRL concentrations (median 1471; IQC: 1064-2016 mlU/L) and postPEG-PRL concentrations (median 1453; IQC: 979-1955 mlU/L) were significantly correlated using intraclass correlation coefficient for single measurements (mean estimation 0.96; 95%CI 0.93-0.97) and average measurement (mean estimation 0.98; 95%CI 0.96-0.99), and all investigated female patient had HPRL according to PRL and postPEG-PRL concentration. The median PRL recovery following PEG precipitation was 95; IQC: 90-100%. There was substantial agreement (kappa test = 0.859, 95% CI: 0.764-0.953) between the categories of HPRL severity based on total PRL concentrations and postPEG-PRL concentrations. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that HPRL was present in all subjects using the reference interval for total PRL concentration and postPEG-PRL concentration with no significant impact of macroprolactin presence in the serum on the categorization of patients according to severity of HPRL.

Circulating macroprolactin exhibits molecular heterogeneity and is not exclusively an antibody complex.

BACKGROUND: Macroprolactin (macPRL) is considered to be solely a prolactin antibody complex. We examined macPRL heterogeneity in samples from thirteen patients suspected of macroprolactinemia. METHODS: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation, gel permeation (GPC), protein-G affinity, and Lectin affinity chromatography were used to investigate the nature of macPRL. RESULTS: Using PEG, 8, 3, and 2 samples were macPRL positive, negative, and indeterminate respectively. Using GPC, prolactin appeared at high (H) (≥150 kDa), mid (M) (≥30 < 150 kDa), and low (L) (<30 k Da) forms. For macPRL positive samples, 52.3 to 95.0%, 3.6 to 34.1%, and 1.4 to 34.5% appeared at the (H), (M), and (L) regions respectively, compared with samples negative for macPRL with 1.2 to 5.1%, 60.0 to 79.4%, and 15.4 to 38.9% prolactin activity respectively. macPRL positive samples showed 30.4 to 86.5% binding to protein G column compared with negative samples at 1.2 to 5.1%. GPC-separated forms showed macPRL is heterogenous being either antibody bound (protein G studies) or glycosylated aggregates (lectin studies). Samples with identified macPRL forms were analysed using 4 immunoassay analysers. CONCLUSIONS: Samples with (H) and (M) macPRL forms showed significant positive bias in 2 immunoassays. The study is limited by the small number of samples and a larger scale study is required.