Reduction of Dilution Error in Elisas Using an Internal Standard

References

• Wild D . The Immunoassay Handbook. Elsevier, Oxford, UK (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Bults P , van de MerbelNC, BischoffR. Quantification of biopharmaceuticals and biomarkers in complex biological matrices: a comparison of liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry and ligand binding assays. Expert Rev. Proteomics12 (4), 355–374 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracewell DG , FrancisR, SmalesCM. The future of host cell protein (HCP) identification during process development and manufacturing linked to a risk-based management for their control. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 112 (9), 1727–1737 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tighe PJ , RyderRR, ToddI, FaircloughLC. ELISA in the multiplex era: potentials and pitfalls. Proteomics Clin. Appl. 9 (3–4), 406–422 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeSilva B , SmithW, WeinerRet al. Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm. Res. 20 (11), 1885–1900 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA . Bioanalytical Method Validation (Draft Guidance for Industry) (2013). www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm368107.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nencini F , PratesiS, PetroniG, MatucciA, MaggiE, VultaggioA. Assays and strategies for immunogenicity assessment of biological agents. Drug Dev. Res. 75 (Suppl. 1), S4–S6 (2014).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• USP Chapter 1033. Biological Assay Validation. USP Pharmacopeial Convention (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Berkow L . Factors affecting hemoglobin measurement. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 27 (5), 499–508 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Favaloro EJ , VerbruggenB, MillerCH. Laboratory testing for factor inhibitors. Haemophilia20 (Suppl. 4), 94–98 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rustamov O , SmithA, RobertsSAet al. The measurement of anti-Mullerian hormone: a critical appraisal. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 99 (3), 723–732 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kricka LJ , CarterTJ, BurtSMet al. Variability in the adsorption properties of microtitre plates used as solid supports in enzyme immunoassay. Clin. Chem. 26 (6), 741–744 (1980).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison RO , HammockBD. Location dependent biases in automatic 96-well microplate readers. J. Assoc. 71 (5), 981–987 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Liang Y , WoodleSA, ShibekoAM, LeeTK, OvanesovMV. Correction of microplate location effects improves performance of the thrombin generation test. Thromb. J. 11 (1), 12–21 (2013).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oliver DG , SandersAH, HoggRD, HellmanJW. Thermal gradients in microtitration plates. Effects on enzyme-linked immunoassay. J. Immunol. Methods42 (2), 195–201 (1981).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verch T . Application of quality by design and statistical quality control concepts in immunoassays. Bioanalysis6 (23), 3251–3260 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooton JW , PaetkauV. Random assignment of treatments in a 96-well (8 × 12) microtiter plate. A practical method. J. Immunol. Methods94 (1–2), 81–89 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hentz NG , KnaideTR. Effect of liquid-handling accuracy on assay performance. J. Lab Autom. 19 (2), 153–162 (2014).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Joelsson D , MoravecP, TroutmanM, PigeonJ, DePhillipsP. Optimizing ELISAs for precision and robustness using laboratory automation and statistical design of experiments. J. Immunol. Methods337 (1), 35–41 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandya K , RayCA, BrunnerL, WangJ, LeeJW, DeSilvaB. Strategies to minimize variability and bias associated with manual pipetting in ligand binding assays to assure data quality of protein therapeutic quantification. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 53 (3), 623–630 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsoi J , PatelV, ShihJ. A practical approach to automate randomized design of experiments for ligand-binding assays. Bioanalysis6 (5), 705–713 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble JE , WangL, CerasoliEet al. An international comparability study to determine the sources of uncertainty associated with a non-competitive sandwich fluorescent ELISA. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 46 (7), 1033–1045 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panicker G , RajbhandariI, GurbaxaniBM, QuerecTD, UngerER. Development and evaluation of multiplexed immunoassay for detection of antibodies to HPV vaccine types. J. Immunol. Methods417, 107–114 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lippi G , GuidiGC, MattiuzziC, PlebaniM. Preanalytical variability: the dark side of the moon in laboratory testing. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 44 (4), 358–365 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plebani M . Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine?Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 44 (6), 750–759 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makarenkov V , ZentilliP, KevorkovD, GagarinA, MaloN, NadonR. An efficient method for the detection and elimination of systematic error in high-throughput screening. Bioinformatics23 (13), 1648–1657 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro AB , WalkupGK, KeatingTA. Correction for interference by test samples in high-throughput assays. J. Biomol. Screen. 14 (8), 1008–1016 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Watzig H , Oltmann-NordenI, SteinickeFet al. Data quality in drug discovery: the role of analytical performance in ligand binding assays. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 29 (9), 847–865 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jani D , AllinsonJ, BerishaFet al. Recommendations for use and fit-for-purpose validation of biomarker multiplex ligand binding assays in drug development. AAPS J. 18 (1), 1–14 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spriggs FP , DurigaN, RathiA, QuQ. Resolution of matrix interference: quantitative and quasi-quantitative ligand-binding assays case studies. Bioanalysis6 (8), 1093–1101 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox KL , DevanarayanV, KriauciunasA, ManettaJ, MontroseC, SittampalamS. Immunoassay methods. Assay Guidance Manual. Eli Lilly & Company and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Das SK , StanleyER, GuilbertLJ, FormanLW. Discrimination of a colony stimulating factor subclass by a specific receptor on a macrophage cell line. J. Cell Physiol104 (3), 359–366 (1980).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins KM , DavidianM, ChewG, BurgeH. The effect of serial dilution error on calibration inference in immunoassay. Biometrics54 (1), 19–32 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutcheon JA , ChioleroA, HanleyJA. Random measurement error and regression dilution bias. BMJ340, c2289 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponnayyan SS , SharmaK, MullangiR, SukumaranSK. Review of the validated HPLC and LC-MS/MS methods for determination of drugs used in clinical practice for Alzheimer’s disease. Biomed. Chromatogr. 28 (11), 1431–1490 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Syed M , SrinivasNR. A comprehensive review of the published assays for the quantitation of the immunosuppressant drug mycophenolic acid and its glucuronidated metabolites in biological fluids. Biomed. Chromatogr. 30 (5), 721–748 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roselle C , VerchT, Shank-RetzlaffM. Mitigation of microtiter plate positioning effects using a block randomization scheme. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 408 (15), 3969–3079 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar