title: Folate status assessment history: implications for measurement of biomarkers in NHANES.
abstract: This article presents a historical perspective on the different methods used to measure folate status in populations and clinical settings. I discuss some of the advantages and limitations of these procedures. For >50 y researchers have used microbiological assay methods to assess folate status in clinical settings and in population-based studies, such as NHANES. Serum and red blood cell folate values obtained with the Lactobacillus casei assay have formed the basis for current ranges and cutoffs for the establishment of folate sufficiency and for the current dietary reference intakes for folate. Over the past 30 y competitive folate protein binding assays, which are available in kit form, have supplanted microbiological assays in many clinical laboratories because of their ease of use. Several NHANES cycles have used these assays. Folate concentrations obtained with these kits are lower than those from microbiological assays and show a wide variation between different protein binding assay kits. This variation has complicated the setting of values for normal ranges of folate status and the comparison of status changes between different NHANES cycles. The recent development of mass spectrometry methods for folate opens up the possibility of measurement of individual folate vitamers such as folic acid. Past experience with microbiological and competitive protein binding assays indicates some of the technical problems that research will need to address before this promise becomes reality.
authors: Department of Nutritional Science and Toxicology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3104, USA. bandie@berkeley.edu
authors: Barry
authors: B
authors: Shane
references: Anal Biochem. 1986 May 1;154(2):509-15
references: 3089059
references: Methods Enzymol. 1997;281:43-53
references: 9250965
references: Blood. 1974 Mar;43(3):437-43
references: 4811826
references: J Bacteriol. 1940 Mar;39(3):273-85
references: 16560291
references: Science. 1944 May 5;99(2575):371
references: 17833673
references: Clin Chem. 1998 Jan;44(1):186-8
references: 9550581
references: Anal Biochem. 1972 Oct;49(2):517-21
references: 4628358
references: JAMA. 1993 Dec 8;270(22):2693-8
references: 8133587
references: Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Jun;91(6):1733-44
references: 20357042
references: Clin Chem. 1959 Aug;5(4):275-80
references: 13671739
references: J Biol Chem. 1976 Jun 10;251(11):3405-10
references: 819430
references: J Gen Microbiol. 1977 Dec;103(2):249-59
references: 413874
references: Clin Chim Acta. 1980 Jan 1;100(1):13-9
references: 7351074
references: J Gen Microbiol. 1977 Dec;103(2):261-70
references: 413875
references: Vitam Horm. 1989;45:263-335
references: 2688305
references: Am J Clin Nutr. 1968 Apr;21(4):289-97
references: 5694720
references: Clin Chem. 1988 Nov;34(11):2357-9
references: 3141087
references: Clin Chem. 2004 Feb;50(2):423-32
references: 14670827
references: Trans Assoc Am Physicians. 1962;75:307-20
references: 13953904
references: Br J Nutr. 1982 Mar;47(2):183-9
references: 6802175
references: Blood. 1973 Aug;42(2):281-90
references: 4134494
references: Nat Genet. 1995 May;10(1):111-3
references: 7647779
references: Science. 1945 Aug 31;102(2644):227-8
references: 17778509
references: Clin Chem. 2000 Mar;46(3):404-11
references: 10702529
references: World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1972;503:1-29
references: 4626525
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Oct 27;95(22):13217-20
references: 9789068
references: Am J Clin Nutr. 1967 Jan;20(1):1-4
references: 6071216