人工ELISA与Ella自动ELISA检测乳腺癌患者血清半乳糖凝集素-3水平的比较分析。

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Cancers Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI:10.3390/cancers17193206
Ella G Markalunas, Shannon E Harold, David H Arnold, Julie C Martin, W Jeffery Edenfield, Anna V Blenda
{"title":"人工ELISA与Ella自动ELISA检测乳腺癌患者血清半乳糖凝集素-3水平的比较分析。","authors":"Ella G Markalunas, Shannon E Harold, David H Arnold, Julie C Martin, W Jeffery Edenfield, Anna V Blenda","doi":"10.3390/cancers17193206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Circulating galectin-3 (Gal-3) levels have been indicated as a promising diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic target in breast cancer patients. Specifically, serum galectin-3 levels are traditionally measured using manual Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), but recent automated methods, such as Simple Plex assay by ProteinSimple™ run on an Ella instrument, have shown promising evidence of being more efficient and less error-prone than manual methods. This paper aims to assess whether there are differences in serum galectin-3 measurements between manual and automated ELISA methods. <b>Methods</b>: Serum galectin-3 levels were initially analyzed from one hundred and fifteen breast cancer samples using both manual ELISA and the Ella instrument. Following coefficient of variation (CV) and outlier analysis, ninety-five samples were analyzed further with JMP statistical software to perform Shapiro-Wilk, Spearman's correlation, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and regression analyses. <b>Results</b>: The Ella instrument resulted in significantly lower CV values, confirming that it is more precise and reliable than manual ELISA methods. There was a moderate correlation between ELISA and Ella measurements (r = 0.49, <i>p</i> < 0.0001), but a Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that serum gaelectin-3 measurements obtained with the Ella instrument were significantly lower compared to those obtained with manual ELISA, with a mean difference of -5.19 ng/mL (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). Regression analysis showed a significant increase in the difference between manual ELISA and Ella measurements as serum galectin-3 levels increase (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). This difference in measurements between manual and automated ELISA techniques remained consistent when analyses were performed within each breast cancer stage, immunophenotype, and histology. <b>Conclusions</b>: While the Ella instrument is a fast and reliable tool, the discrepancies between manual ELISA and the Ella instrument in quantifying serum galectin-3 levels are important to consider prior to widespread use.</p>","PeriodicalId":9681,"journal":{"name":"Cancers","volume":"17 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Manual ELISA and Ella, an Automated Instrument for ELISA, in Measuring Serum Galectin-3 Levels in Breast Cancer Patient Samples.\",\"authors\":\"Ella G Markalunas, Shannon E Harold, David H Arnold, Julie C Martin, W Jeffery Edenfield, Anna V Blenda\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/cancers17193206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Circulating galectin-3 (Gal-3) levels have been indicated as a promising diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic target in breast cancer patients. Specifically, serum galectin-3 levels are traditionally measured using manual Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), but recent automated methods, such as Simple Plex assay by ProteinSimple™ run on an Ella instrument, have shown promising evidence of being more efficient and less error-prone than manual methods. This paper aims to assess whether there are differences in serum galectin-3 measurements between manual and automated ELISA methods. <b>Methods</b>: Serum galectin-3 levels were initially analyzed from one hundred and fifteen breast cancer samples using both manual ELISA and the Ella instrument. Following coefficient of variation (CV) and outlier analysis, ninety-five samples were analyzed further with JMP statistical software to perform Shapiro-Wilk, Spearman's correlation, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and regression analyses. <b>Results</b>: The Ella instrument resulted in significantly lower CV values, confirming that it is more precise and reliable than manual ELISA methods. There was a moderate correlation between ELISA and Ella measurements (r = 0.49, <i>p</i> < 0.0001), but a Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that serum gaelectin-3 measurements obtained with the Ella instrument were significantly lower compared to those obtained with manual ELISA, with a mean difference of -5.19 ng/mL (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). Regression analysis showed a significant increase in the difference between manual ELISA and Ella measurements as serum galectin-3 levels increase (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). This difference in measurements between manual and automated ELISA techniques remained consistent when analyses were performed within each breast cancer stage, immunophenotype, and histology. <b>Conclusions</b>: While the Ella instrument is a fast and reliable tool, the discrepancies between manual ELISA and the Ella instrument in quantifying serum galectin-3 levels are important to consider prior to widespread use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancers\",\"volume\":\"17 19\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17193206\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17193206","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:循环半乳糖凝集素-3 (Gal-3)水平已被认为是乳腺癌患者有希望的诊断、预后和治疗靶点。具体来说,血清半乳糖凝集素-3水平传统上是用人工酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)测量的,但最近的自动化方法,如ProteinSimple™在Ella仪器上运行的Simple Plex测定,已经显示出比人工方法更有效、更少出错的有希望的证据。本文旨在评估是否有血清半凝集素-3测量之间的手工和自动ELISA方法的差异。方法:采用手工ELISA和Ella仪器对115例乳腺癌患者血清半乳糖凝集素-3水平进行初步分析。在变异系数(CV)和离群值分析之后,对95个样本进行进一步分析,采用JMP统计软件进行Shapiro-Wilk、Spearman相关、Wilcoxon符号秩和回归分析。结果:Ella仪器的CV值显著降低,证实了其比手工ELISA方法更精确和可靠。ELISA与Ella检测结果之间存在中度相关性(r = 0.49, p < 0.0001),但Wilcoxon标记秩检验显示,Ella仪器获得的血清gaelectin-3检测结果显著低于手工ELISA检测结果,平均差异为-5.19 ng/mL (p < 0.0001)。回归分析显示,随着血清半凝集素-3水平的升高,手工ELISA和Ella测定的差异显著增加(p < 0.0001)。当在每个乳腺癌阶段、免疫表型和组织学中进行分析时,手动和自动ELISA技术之间的测量差异保持一致。结论:虽然Ella仪器是一种快速可靠的工具,但在广泛使用之前,人工ELISA和Ella仪器在定量血清半乳糖凝集素-3水平方面的差异是重要的考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Manual ELISA and Ella, an Automated Instrument for ELISA, in Measuring Serum Galectin-3 Levels in Breast Cancer Patient Samples.

Background: Circulating galectin-3 (Gal-3) levels have been indicated as a promising diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic target in breast cancer patients. Specifically, serum galectin-3 levels are traditionally measured using manual Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), but recent automated methods, such as Simple Plex assay by ProteinSimple™ run on an Ella instrument, have shown promising evidence of being more efficient and less error-prone than manual methods. This paper aims to assess whether there are differences in serum galectin-3 measurements between manual and automated ELISA methods. Methods: Serum galectin-3 levels were initially analyzed from one hundred and fifteen breast cancer samples using both manual ELISA and the Ella instrument. Following coefficient of variation (CV) and outlier analysis, ninety-five samples were analyzed further with JMP statistical software to perform Shapiro-Wilk, Spearman's correlation, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and regression analyses. Results: The Ella instrument resulted in significantly lower CV values, confirming that it is more precise and reliable than manual ELISA methods. There was a moderate correlation between ELISA and Ella measurements (r = 0.49, p < 0.0001), but a Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that serum gaelectin-3 measurements obtained with the Ella instrument were significantly lower compared to those obtained with manual ELISA, with a mean difference of -5.19 ng/mL (p < 0.0001). Regression analysis showed a significant increase in the difference between manual ELISA and Ella measurements as serum galectin-3 levels increase (p < 0.0001). This difference in measurements between manual and automated ELISA techniques remained consistent when analyses were performed within each breast cancer stage, immunophenotype, and histology. Conclusions: While the Ella instrument is a fast and reliable tool, the discrepancies between manual ELISA and the Ella instrument in quantifying serum galectin-3 levels are important to consider prior to widespread use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cancers
Cancers Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
9.60%
发文量
5371
审稿时长
18.07 days
期刊介绍: Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal on oncology. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信