This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Martins, T. B. Articles by Hill, H. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Martins, T. B. Articles by Hill, H. R.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, 01 1995, 98-103, Vol 2, No. 1
Copyright © 1995 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

An evaluation of the effectiveness of three immunoglobulin G (IgG) removal procedures for routine IgM serological testing

TB Martins, TD Jaskowski, CL Mouritsen and HR Hill
Department of Immunology, Associated Regional and University Pathologists, Salt Lake City, UT 84108.

Three procedures for the removal of immunoglobulin G (IgG) from human serum were evaluated for their effectiveness in eliminating false- positive results caused by rheumatoid factor and in removing IgG from serum to reduce competing-IgG interference in IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing. The procedures investigated employed two anti-human IgG diluents and a recombinant protein G-filled tube. The anti-human IgG was more effective than the protein G method in eliminating false-positive results caused by rheumatoid factor and removed 5.4% more IgG from serum samples in the normal range (< 1,700 mg/dl) and up to 16.4% more of the IgG from samples with elevated levels (> 1,700 mg/dl). The recombinant protein G removed less IgM than the anti-human IgG diluents; however, this difference did not affect the results of the ELISA. For these reasons, the in-house-developed anti-human IgG diluent proved to be the most effective and economical for IgM serological testing.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Malan, A. K., Avelar, E., Litwin, S. E., Hill, H. R., Litwin, C. M. (2006). Serological diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi: evaluation of three enzyme immunoassays and an indirect immunofluorescent assay. J Med Microbiol 55: 171-178 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Chen, H. Y., Lu, Y., Howard, T., Anderson, D., Fong, P. Y., Hu, W.-P., Chia, C. P., Guan, M. (2005). Comparison of a New Immunochromatographic Test to Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Rapid Detection of Immunoglobulin M Antibodies to Hepatitis E Virus in Human Sera. CVI 12: 593-598 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Martins, T. B. (2002). Development of Internal Controls for the Luminex Instrument as Part of a Multiplex Seven-Analyte Viral Respiratory Antibody Profile. CVI 9: 41-45 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Despres, N., Grant, A. M. (1998). Antibody interference in thyroid assays: a potential for clinical misinformation. Clin. Chem. 44: 440-454 [Abstract] [Full Text]