Comparison of serum cytokine measurement techniques between ELISA vs Multiplex

Abstract

Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has been classically described as the gold standard for serum cytokine analysis. However, multiplex array technologies are increasing in popularity, likely because of their ability to analyze large numbers of analytes with low sample volume compared to ELISA. However, few studies have directly compared serum cytokine results from ELISA and multiplex analytical techniques. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine differences in serum cytokine concentrations between ELISA and Multiplex techniques. Blood samples were collected from the antecubital vein of professional American football players during a competitive season. After clotting, blood was centrifuged and three 300 μL aliquots of serum were frozen at −80°C. IL‐1β, IL‐6, and TNF‐α were measured using ELISA (EMD Millipore, Sigma Aldrich) and Multiplex (EMD Millipore, MagPix) kits. For standardization, one technician carried out the respective protocol under the same laboratory conditions on the same samples. Descriptive statistics are shown as mean ± SD. Coefficients of variation (CV%), paired samples t‐test with 95% CI, and Pearson’s product‐moment correlations were used to compare cytokine analysis techniques. Results indicated that serum cytokine concentrations were not comparable between ELISA and Multiplex analytical techniques. IL‐1β (n=15) displayed significant variability between techniques with a CV% of 119.9 with ELISA reading 36.8 ± 32.4 pg/mL, intra‐assay CV%= 7.6 and Multiplex showing 1.1 ± 1.2 pg/mL, intra‐assay CV%= 6.8. IL‐6 (n=33) demonstrated substantial variability between techniques with a CV% of 126.9 with ELISA reading 340.2 ± 460.5 pg/mL, intra‐assay CV%= 15.3 and Multiplex showing 11.8 ± 20.2 pg/mL, intra‐assay CV%= 4.8. For TNF‐α (n=36) all ELISA samples were below the detection limit of 0.31 with the Multiplex detecting 8.8 ± 3.2 pg/mL, intra‐assay CV%= 7.9. Moreover, paired samples t‐tests showed considerable mean differences between analysis techniques for IL‐1β (−35.8 pg/mL, (95% CI, −51.6 to −19.9) t(17) = −4.8, p < 0.001) and IL‐6 (−328.4 pg/mL (95% CI,−490.0 to −166.7), t(32)= −4.1, p < 0.001. Pearson’s correlation between ELISA and Multiplex was not significant for IL‐1β [r(13) = 0.44, p = 0.068] or IL‐6 [r(31) = 0.25, p = 0.157]. The results suggest that differences in blocking agents between both techniques may be the source of erraticism. According to the results from this study comparisons between analytical techniques should be avoided.Support or Funding InformationThis study was funded by and the authors are employed by the Gatorade Sports Science Institute, a division of PepsiCo, Inc. The views expressed in this abstract are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of PepsiCo, Inc.