title: Comparison of serum and red blood cell folate microbiologic assays for national population surveys.
abstract: Three laboratories participated with their laboratory-specific microbiologic growth assays (MA) in the NHANES 2007-2008 to assess whether the distributions of serum (n = 2645) and RBC folate (n = 2613) for the same one-third sample of participants were comparable among laboratories. Laboratory (L) 2 produced the highest and L1 the lowest serum and RBC folate geometric means (nmol/L) in the NHANES sample (serum: L1, 39.5; L2, 59.2; L3, 47.7; and RBC: L1, 1120; L2, 1380; L3, 1380). Each laboratory produced different reference intervals for the central 95% of the population. Pearson correlation coefficients were highest between L3 and L1 (serum, r = 0.95; RBC, r = 0.92) and lowest between L2 and L1 (serum, r = 0.81; RBC, r = 0.65). Notable procedural differences among the laboratories were the Lactobacillus rhamnosus microorganism (L1 and L3: chloramphenicol resistant, L2: wild type) and the calibrator [L1: [6S]5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-methylTHF), L2: [6R,S] 5-formyltetrahydrofolate ([6R,S] 5-formylTHF), L3: folic acid (FA)]. Compared with 5-methylTHF as calibrator, the folate results were 22-32% higher with FA as calibrator and 8% higher with 5-formylTHF as calibrator, regardless of the matrix (n = 30 serum, n = 28 RBC). The use of different calibrators explained most of the differences in results between L3 and L1 but not between L2 and L1. The use of the wild-type L. rhamnosus by L2 appeared to be the main reason for the differences in results between L2 and the other 2 laboratories. These findings indicate how assay variations influence MA folate results and how those variations can affect population data. To ensure data comparability, better assay harmonization is needed.
authors: National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. CPfeiffer@cdc.gov
authors: Christine M
authors: CM
authors: Pfeiffer
authors: Mindy
authors: M
authors: Zhang
authors: David A
authors: DA
authors: Lacher
authors: Anne M
authors: AM
authors: Molloy
authors: Tsunenobu
authors: T
authors: Tamura
authors: Elizabeth A
authors: EA
authors: Yetley
authors: Mary-Frances
authors: MF
authors: Picciano
authors: Clifford L
authors: CL
authors: Johnson
references: J Clin Pathol. 1973 Jan;26(1):80-1
references: 4632762
references: Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Sep;86(3):718-27
references: 17823438
references: Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Sep;88(3):763-8
references: 18779294
references: J Clin Pathol. 1970 Feb;23(1):54-9
references: 5439089
references: Clin Chem. 2005 Dec;51(12):2318-25
references: 16214826
references: Clin Chem Lab Med. 2004 May;42(5):533-9
references: 15202790
references: Microbiology (Reading). 1997 Aug;143 ( Pt 8):2639-2646
references: 9274017
references: J Clin Pathol. 1972 Dec;25(12):1050-2
references: 4632329
references: Anal Bioanal Chem. 2006 Jun;385(3):612-22
references: 16715281
references: Clin Chim Acta. 1980 Jan 1;100(1):13-9
references: 7351074
references: Clin Chem. 2008 Jan;54(1):197-201
references: 18160726
references: J Clin Pathol. 1992 Apr;45(4):344-7
references: 1577973
references: Clin Chem. 2007 Apr;53(4):781-4
references: 17272488
references: Clin Chem. 2004 Feb;50(2):423-32
references: 14670827
references: Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45(3):380-6
references: 17378737
references: Methods Enzymol. 1997;281:43-53
references: 9250965
references: J Clin Pathol. 1970 Feb;23(1):47-53
references: 5439088
references: Clin Chem. 1996 Oct;42(10):1689-94
references: 8855155