Home Repeatability and reproducibility of lipoprotein particle profile measurements in plasma samples by ultracentrifugation
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Repeatability and reproducibility of lipoprotein particle profile measurements in plasma samples by ultracentrifugation

  • Sandra Monsonis-Centelles , Huub C.J. Hoefsloot , Søren B. Engelsen , Age K. Smilde and Mads V. Lind ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: September 25, 2019
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
From the journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) Volume 58 Issue 1

Abstract

Background

Characterization of lipoprotein particle profiles (LPPs) (including main classes and subclasses) by means of ultracentrifugation (UC) is highly requested given its clinical potential. However, rapid methods are required to replace the very labor-intensive UC method and one solution is to calibrate rapid nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based prediction models, but the reliability of the UC-response method required for the NMR calibration has been largely overlooked.

Methods

This study provides a comprehensive repeatability and reproducibility study of various UC-based lipid measurements (cholesterol, triglycerides [TGs], free cholesterol, phospholipids, apolipoprotein [apo]A1 and apoB) in different main classes and subclasses of 25 duplicated fresh plasma samples and of 42 quality control (QC) frozen pooled plasma samples of healthy individuals.

Results

Cholesterol, apoA1 and apoB measurements were very repeatable in all classes (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 92.93%–99.54%). Free cholesterol and phospholipid concentrations in main classes and subclasses and TG concentrations in high-density lipoproteins (HDL), HDL subclasses and low-density lipoproteins (LDL) subclasses, showed worse repeatability (ICC: 19.21%–99.08%) attributable to low concentrations, variability introduced during UC and assay limitations. On frozen QC samples, the reproducibility of cholesterol, apoA1 and apoB concentrations was found to be better than for the free cholesterol, phospholipids and TGs concentrations.

Conclusions

This study shows that for LPPs measurements near or below the limit of detection (LOD) in some of the subclasses, as well as the use of frozen samples, results in worsened repeatability and reproducibility. Furthermore, we show that the analytical assay coupled to UC for free cholesterol and phospholipids have different repeatability and reproducibility. All of this needs to be taken into account when calibrating future NMR-based models.

Keywords: analytical variation; cholesterol; dyslipidemia; lipoproteins; quality control; triglycerides; variability

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: This study was funded by the Danish Strategic Research Council/Innovation Foundation Denmark (COUNTERSTRIKE, grant number 4105-00015B).

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Superko HR. Advanced lipoprotein testing and subfractionation are clinically useful. Circulation 2009;119:2383–94.10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.809582Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Gordon T, Castelli WP, Hjortland MC, Kannel WB, Dawber TR. High density lipoprotein as a protective factor against coronary heart disease. The Framingham Study. Am J Med 1977;62:707–14.10.1016/0002-9343(77)90874-9Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Fredrickson DS, Levy RI, Lees RS. Fat transport in lipoproteins – an integrated approach to mechanisms and disorders. N Engl J Med 1967;276:215–25.10.1056/NEJM196701262760406Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Han S, Flattery AM, McLaren D, Raubertas R, Lee SH, Mendoza V, et al. Comparison of lipoprotein separation and lipid analysis methodologies for human and cynomolgus monkey plasma samples. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 2012;5:75–83.10.1007/s12265-011-9340-9Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Smith SJ, Cooper GR, Myers GL, Sampson EJ. Biological variability in concentrations of serum lipids: sources of variation among results from published studies and composite predicted values. Clin Chem 1993;39:1012–22.10.1093/clinchem/39.6.1012Search in Google Scholar

6. Marcovina SM, Gaur VP, Albers JJ. Biological variability of cholesterol, triglyceride, low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, lipoprotein(a), and apolipoproteins A-I and B. Clin Chem 1994;40:574–8.10.1093/clinchem/40.4.574Search in Google Scholar

7. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem 1972;18:499–502.10.1093/clinchem/18.6.499Search in Google Scholar

8. Schectman G, Patsches M, Sasse EA. Variability in cholesterol measurements: comparison of calculated and direct LDL cholesterol determinations. Clin Chem 1996;42:732–7.10.1093/clinchem/42.5.732Search in Google Scholar

9. Fukuyama N, Homma K, Wakana N, Kudo K, Suyama A, Ohazama H, et al. Validation of the Friedewald equation for evaluation of plasma LDL-cholesterol. J Clin Biochem Nutr 2008;43:1–5.10.3164/jcbn.2008036Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

10. Meeusen JW, Snozek CL, Baumann NA, Jaffe AS, Saenger AK. Reliability of calculated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Am J Cardiol 2015;116:538–40.10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.05.013Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Martin SS, Blaha MJ, Elshazly MB, Toth PP, Kwiterovich PO, Blumenthal RS, et al. Comparison of a novel method vs. the Friedewald equation for estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from the standard lipid profile. J Am Med Assoc 2013;310:2061–8.10.1001/jama.2013.280532Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

12. Okazaki M, Usui S, Ishigami M, Sakai N, Nakamura T, Matsuzawa Y, et al. Identification of unique lipoprotein subclasses for visceral obesity by component analysis of cholesterol profile in high-performance liquid chromatography. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2005;25:578–84.10.1161/01.ATV.0000155017.60171.88Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Baumstark MW, Kreutz W, Berg A, Frey I, Keul J. Structure of human low-density lipoprotein subfractions determined by X-ray small-angle scattering. Biochim Biophys Acta – Protein Struct Mol Enzymol 1990;1037:48–57.10.1016/0167-4838(90)90100-TSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Aru V, Lam C, Khakimov B, Hoefsloot HC, Zwanenburg G, Lind MV, et al. Quantification of lipoprotein profiles by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and multivariate data analysis. TrAC – Trends Anal Chem 2017;94:210–9.10.1016/j.trac.2017.07.009Search in Google Scholar

15. Mihaleva VV, Van Schalkwijk DB, De Graaf AA, Van Duynhoven J, Van Dorsten FA, Vervoort J, et al. A systematic approach to obtain validated partial least square models for predicting lipoprotein subclasses from serum nmr spectra. Anal Chem 2014;86:543–50.10.1021/ac402571zSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Jeyarajah EJ, Cromwell WC, Otvos JD. Lipoprotein particle analysis by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Clin Lab Med 2006;26:847–70.10.1016/j.cll.2006.07.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Petersen M, Dyrby M, Toubro S, Engelsen SB, Nørgaard L, Pedersen HT, et al. Quantification of lipoprotein subclasses by proton nuclear magnetic resonance-based partial least-squares regression models. Clin Chem 2005;51:1457–61.10.1373/clinchem.2004.046748Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Bathen TF, Krane J, Engan T, Bjerve KS, Axelson D. Quantification of plasma lipids and apolipoproteins by use of proton NMR spectroscopy, multivariate and neural network analysis. NMR Biomed 2000;13:271–88.10.1002/1099-1492(200008)13:5<271::AID-NBM646>3.0.CO;2-7Search in Google Scholar

19. Ala-Korpela M, Hiltunen Y, Bell JD. Quantification of biomedical NMR data using artificial neural network analysis: lipoprotein lipid profiles from 1H NMR data of human plasma. NMR Biomed 1995;8:235–44.10.1002/nbm.1940080603Search in Google Scholar

20. Dona AC, Jimenez B, Schafer H, Humpfer E, Spraul M, Lewis MR, et al. Precision high-throughput proton NMR spectroscopy of human urine, serum, and plasma for large-scale metabolic phenotyping. Anal Chem 2014;86:9887–94.10.1021/ac5025039Search in Google Scholar

21. Monsonis Centelles S, Hoefsloot HC, Khakimov B, Ebrahimi P, Lind MV, Kristensen M, et al. Toward reliable lipoprotein particle predictions from NMR spectra of human blood: an interlaboratory ring test. Anal Chem 2017;89:8004–12.10.1021/acs.analchem.7b01329Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

22. Pagani F, Panteghini M. Significance of various parameters derived from biological variability for lipid and lipoprotein analyses. Clin Biochem 1993;26:415–20.10.1016/0009-9120(93)90119-QSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

23. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996;1:30–46.10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30Search in Google Scholar

24. Munroe WH, Phillips ML, Schumaker VN. Excessive centrifugal fields damage high density lipoprotein. J Lipid Res 2015;56:1172–81.10.1194/jlr.M058735Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

25. Castile JD, Taylor KM. Factors affecting the size distribution of liposomes produced by freeze-thaw extrusion. Int J Pharm 1999;188:87–95.10.1016/S0378-5173(99)00207-0Search in Google Scholar

26. Zivkovic AM, Wiest MM, Nguyen UT, Davis R, Watkins SM,German JB. Effects of sample handling and storage on quantitative lipid analysis in human serum. Metabolomics 2009;5:507–16.10.1007/s11306-009-0174-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

27. Ala-Korpela M, Korhonen A, Keisala J, Hörkkö S, Korpi P, Ingman LP, et al. 1H NMR-based absolute quantitation of human lipoproteins and their lipid contents directly from plasma. J Lipid Res 1994;35:2292–304.10.1016/S0022-2275(20)39935-1Search in Google Scholar

28. Nakamura M, Kayamori Y, Iso H, Kitamura A, Kiyama M, Koyama I, et al. LDL cholesterol performance of beta quantification reference measurement procedure. Clin Chim Acta 2014;20:288–93.10.1016/j.cca.2014.02.018Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0729).

Received: 2019-07-18
Accepted: 2019-09-05
Published Online: 2019-09-25
Published in Print: 2019-12-18

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Reflex TSH strategy: the good, the bad and the ugly
  4. Review
  5. Shortcomings in the evaluation of biomarkers in ovarian cancer: a systematic review
  6. Mini Review
  7. Clinical application of presepsin as diagnostic biomarker of infection: overview and updates
  8. Opinion Paper
  9. Gut microbiotas and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy response: a causal or coincidental relationship?
  10. EFLM Paper
  11. Systematic review and meta-analysis of within-subject and between-subject biological variation estimates of 20 haematological parameters
  12. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  13. Pre-, post- or no acidification of urine samples for calcium analysis: does it matter?
  14. Pre-analytical and analytical confounders of serum calprotectin as a biomarker in rheumatoid arthritis
  15. Dynamics of soluble syndecan-1 in maternal serum during and after pregnancies complicated by preeclampsia: a nested case control study
  16. Multi-site performance evaluation and Sigma metrics of 20 assays on the Atellica chemistry and immunoassay analyzers
  17. Plasma creatinine medians from patients partitioned by gender and age used as a tool for assessment of analytical stability at different concentrations
  18. Two-center comparison of 10 fully-automated commercial procalcitonin (PCT) immunoassays
  19. Method comparison of four clinically available assays for serum free light chain analysis
  20. Comparison of three different chemiluminescence assays and a rapid liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method for measuring serum aldosterone
  21. Repeatability and reproducibility of lipoprotein particle profile measurements in plasma samples by ultracentrifugation
  22. Reference Values and Biological Variations
  23. A study on reference interval transference via linear regression
  24. Cancer Diagnostics
  25. Unstimulated high-sensitive thyroglobulin is a powerful prognostic predictor in patients with thyroid cancer
  26. Cardiovascular Diseases
  27. Analytical validation of a highly sensitive point-of-care system for cardiac troponin I determination
  28. Acknowledgment
  29. Letters to the Editor
  30. Are icteric and lipemic indices reliable to screen for hyperbilirubinemia and hypertriglyceridemia?
  31. Anti-streptavidin antibodies as a cause of false-positive results of streptavidin-based autoantibody assays
  32. Assessment of complement interference in anti-Müllerian hormone immunoassays
  33. Validating thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) reflexive testing cutpoints in a tertiary care institution
  34. Results of the second external quality assessment for human papillomavirus genotyping in Shanghai, China
  35. Development of suitable external quality control material for G6PD deficiency screening with the fluorescent spot test
  36. Non-linearity in commercially available lipase assays: still gaps to close
  37. JAK2, 46/1 haplotype and chronic myelogenous leukemia: diagnostic and therapeutic potential
  38. Congress Abstracts
  39. 11th National Scientifc Congress SPML
https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0729
Keywords for this article
analytical variation; cholesterol; dyslipidemia; lipoproteins; quality control; triglycerides; variability

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Reflex TSH strategy: the good, the bad and the ugly
  4. Review
  5. Shortcomings in the evaluation of biomarkers in ovarian cancer: a systematic review
  6. Mini Review
  7. Clinical application of presepsin as diagnostic biomarker of infection: overview and updates
  8. Opinion Paper
  9. Gut microbiotas and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy response: a causal or coincidental relationship?
  10. EFLM Paper
  11. Systematic review and meta-analysis of within-subject and between-subject biological variation estimates of 20 haematological parameters
  12. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  13. Pre-, post- or no acidification of urine samples for calcium analysis: does it matter?
  14. Pre-analytical and analytical confounders of serum calprotectin as a biomarker in rheumatoid arthritis
  15. Dynamics of soluble syndecan-1 in maternal serum during and after pregnancies complicated by preeclampsia: a nested case control study
  16. Multi-site performance evaluation and Sigma metrics of 20 assays on the Atellica chemistry and immunoassay analyzers
  17. Plasma creatinine medians from patients partitioned by gender and age used as a tool for assessment of analytical stability at different concentrations
  18. Two-center comparison of 10 fully-automated commercial procalcitonin (PCT) immunoassays
  19. Method comparison of four clinically available assays for serum free light chain analysis
  20. Comparison of three different chemiluminescence assays and a rapid liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method for measuring serum aldosterone
  21. Repeatability and reproducibility of lipoprotein particle profile measurements in plasma samples by ultracentrifugation
  22. Reference Values and Biological Variations
  23. A study on reference interval transference via linear regression
  24. Cancer Diagnostics
  25. Unstimulated high-sensitive thyroglobulin is a powerful prognostic predictor in patients with thyroid cancer
  26. Cardiovascular Diseases
  27. Analytical validation of a highly sensitive point-of-care system for cardiac troponin I determination
  28. Acknowledgment
  29. Letters to the Editor
  30. Are icteric and lipemic indices reliable to screen for hyperbilirubinemia and hypertriglyceridemia?
  31. Anti-streptavidin antibodies as a cause of false-positive results of streptavidin-based autoantibody assays
  32. Assessment of complement interference in anti-Müllerian hormone immunoassays
  33. Validating thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) reflexive testing cutpoints in a tertiary care institution
  34. Results of the second external quality assessment for human papillomavirus genotyping in Shanghai, China
  35. Development of suitable external quality control material for G6PD deficiency screening with the fluorescent spot test
  36. Non-linearity in commercially available lipase assays: still gaps to close
  37. JAK2, 46/1 haplotype and chronic myelogenous leukemia: diagnostic and therapeutic potential
  38. Congress Abstracts
  39. 11th National Scientifc Congress SPML
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 21.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2019-0729/html
Scroll to top button