We read with interest the editorial by Collinson on the use of cardiac troponins T and I (cTnT, cTnI) as specific markers of myocardial damage (1). We agree with Collinson when he suggests that there were some inconsistencies in the data presented by Bodor et al. (2). We, too, were concerned by the use of a system optimized for the measurement of serum troponin T to measure this analyte in extracts of muscle tissue, since there are several dilution and matrix problems to address in this setting (3). Bodor et al. have previously published data measuring cTnI, using the same extraction method (4). We would suggest that, if the methods were as described in both of these publications, they appear to be fundamentally flawed. The authors omitted a vital step in the purification process, which renders their data highly questionable. They prepared two separate fractions, one for soluble cytosolic proteins and one for insoluble myofibrillar proteins. The myofibrillar fraction was then solublized with 8 mol/L urea. The detergent action of urea denatures the proteins of the myofibrillar complex, causing the components of the complex to dissociate. It is well documented that even low concentrations of urea interfere with the Lowry protein assay (5)(6). The kit manufacturer, Sigma, does not recommend the use of this assay in the presence of urea. However, Bodor et al. used this assay to determine total protein concentration in the presence of 8 mol/L urea. The consequent problem is illustrated in Fig. 1⇓ . In addition, 8 mol/L urea could seriously interfere with antibody binding in the immunoassay for cTnT and contribute to a substantial matrix effect. The myofibrillar fraction should have been desalted before any analytical measurements for either total protein, cTnI, or cTnT were performed. Several studies have been published in … bAuthor for correspondence: e-mail GBodor{at}dhha.org