Interlaboratory comparisons of cyanotoxin analysis by ELISA and LC–MS/MS

Matthew D. Prescott, Ai Jia, Yingbo C. Guo, George D. Di Giovanni, Wei L. Li, Eduardo A. Garcia, Brett J. Vanderford, Andrew D. Eaton
{"title":"Interlaboratory comparisons of cyanotoxin analysis by ELISA and LC–MS/MS","authors":"Matthew D. Prescott,&nbsp;Ai Jia,&nbsp;Yingbo C. Guo,&nbsp;George D. Di Giovanni,&nbsp;Wei L. Li,&nbsp;Eduardo A. Garcia,&nbsp;Brett J. Vanderford,&nbsp;Andrew D. Eaton","doi":"10.1002/aws2.1342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>Two commonly used methods for cyanotoxin analysis are enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Two rounds of interlaboratory comparisons of ELISA and LC–MS/MS analyses were conducted with 12 participating laboratories to evaluate method performances in various matrices, including cyanobacterial bloom and drinking water samples. Fifteen cyanotoxins, including 12 microcystin variants, nodularin, anatoxin-a, and cylindrospermopsin were evaluated. The impact of sample matrices, preservatives, and quenching reagents was assessed, and no substantial effects were observed. Overall, comparable results were obtained among laboratories performing ELISA and LC–MS/MS analyses, respectively. ELISA results for fortified samples matched more closely with those from LC–MS/MS when microcystin cross-reactivities were considered, providing data 26% closer to theoretical values on average. This study demonstrates that understanding the effect of cross-reactivities when comparing ELISA and LC–MS/MS results and considering potential variabilities in commercial standards is important when interpreting data from these two methods.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":101301,"journal":{"name":"AWWA water science","volume":"5 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aws2.1342","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AWWA water science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aws2.1342","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two commonly used methods for cyanotoxin analysis are enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Two rounds of interlaboratory comparisons of ELISA and LC–MS/MS analyses were conducted with 12 participating laboratories to evaluate method performances in various matrices, including cyanobacterial bloom and drinking water samples. Fifteen cyanotoxins, including 12 microcystin variants, nodularin, anatoxin-a, and cylindrospermopsin were evaluated. The impact of sample matrices, preservatives, and quenching reagents was assessed, and no substantial effects were observed. Overall, comparable results were obtained among laboratories performing ELISA and LC–MS/MS analyses, respectively. ELISA results for fortified samples matched more closely with those from LC–MS/MS when microcystin cross-reactivities were considered, providing data 26% closer to theoretical values on average. This study demonstrates that understanding the effect of cross-reactivities when comparing ELISA and LC–MS/MS results and considering potential variabilities in commercial standards is important when interpreting data from these two methods.

用ELISA和LC–MS/MS进行蓝藻毒素分析的实验室间比较
两种常用的蓝藻毒素分析方法是酶联免疫吸附测定法(ELISA)和液相色谱/串联质谱法(LC–MS/MS)。与12个参与实验室进行了两轮ELISA和LC–MS/MS分析的实验室间比较,以评估方法在各种基质中的性能,包括蓝藻水华和饮用水样品。评估了15种蓝藻毒素,包括12种微囊藻毒素变体、结节藻毒素、类毒素-a和柱状藻毒素。评估了样品基质、防腐剂和淬火试剂的影响,未观察到实质性影响。总体而言,分别在进行ELISA和LC–MS/MS分析的实验室中获得了可比较的结果。当考虑微囊藻毒素的交叉反应时,强化样品的ELISA结果与LC–MS/MS的结果更接近,提供的数据平均接近理论值26%。这项研究表明,在解释这两种方法的数据时,在比较ELISA和LC–MS/MS结果时,理解交叉反应的影响并考虑商业标准中的潜在变异性是很重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信