↓ Skip to main content

Insulin‐like growth factor I in cats: validation of an enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay and determination of biologic variation

Overview of attention for article published in Veterinary Clinical Pathology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Insulin‐like growth factor I in cats: validation of an enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay and determination of biologic variation
Published in
Veterinary Clinical Pathology, September 2015
DOI 10.1111/vcp.12289
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma M Strage, Elvar Theodorsson, Bodil Ström Holst, Inger Lilliehöök, Moira S Lewitt

Abstract

Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) measurements are used in veterinary medicine for diagnosing growth hormone disorders. IGF-I assays are subject to interference by IGF-binding proteins (IGFBP) which may not be efficiently removed by standard extraction methods. Adding excess IGF-II during analysis may improve accuracy and precision. The purpose of the study was to validate a commercial human IGF-I ELISA which uses excess IGF-II for feline samples and to evaluate biologic variation. Precision was determined by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV). Accuracy was determined by recovery after removal of IGFBP, addition of IGF-I, and linear dilution after the addition of IGFBP. Biologic variation was determined by repeated sampling in 7 cats. There was interference by IGFBP in the high measuring range, resulting in falsely low IGF-I concentrations. This was overcome by the addition of high concentrations of IGF-II. Untreated serum had a measured/expected ratio of 98-115% compared to serum where IGFBP had been removed. Recovery after the addition of IGF-I was 83-112%. Inter- and intra-assay CVs ranged from 2.4% to 5.0% which is within the minimum acceptance criteria based on biologic variation. The reference interval of IGF-I was wide (90-1207 ng/mL) and there was a significant association between body weight and ln IGF-I (P < .000001). This human ELISA is suitable for feline samples, but interfering IGFBP can cause falsely low concentrations. It is recommended to dilute samples such that IGF-I is < 28 ng/mL on the standard curve to grant for sufficient IGF-II for binding of interferent IGFBP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 12 27%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 23 52%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 8 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#21,938,746
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Clinical Pathology
#480
of 817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,740
of 279,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Clinical Pathology
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 817 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.