Comparison of a radioallergosorbent (RAST) inhibition method and a monoclonal enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for aeroallergen measurement

• Published in: Clinical and experimental allergy Vol. 27; no. 11; pp. 1314 - 1321
• Main Authors: RENSTRÖM, A, GORDON, S, LARSSON, P. H, TEE, R. D, TAYLOR, A. J. N, MALMBERG, P
• Format: Conference Proceeding Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Blackwell 01.11.1997
• Subjects: Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis; Allergens - analysis; Allergic diseases; Animals; Biological and medical sciences; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; General aspects; Humans; Immunopathology; Medical sciences; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Mice; Radioallergosorbent Test; Rats; Urine; Radioallergosorbent test; Rat; Rodentia; Inhaled air; Air; Monoclonal antibody; Vertebrata; Mammalia; Air pollution; Measurement method; Technique; Airborne allergen; ELISA assay; Comparative study; Allergen; Quantitative analysis
• ISSN: 0954-7894; 1365-2222
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2222.1997.1570957.x

Mouse and rat urinary proteins are potent occupational allergens for exposed personnel. Methods of measuring airborne allergens differ greatly, and reported levels of allergens vary considerably between laboratories. To compare the values obtained using two different methods of allergen detection. Air samples were collected in rat rooms in Sweden and the United Kingdom at 2 L/min on to polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filters and extracted in buffer containing 0.5% v/v Tween 20. Airborne rat urinary allergen (RUA) was measured in all samples by both RAST inhibition using a polyclonal human serum pool (UK) and a two monoclonal antibody sandwich ELISA employing antibodies specific for Rat n 1.02 (alpha2u-globulin) (Sweden). The two methods gave values which were correlated (r2 log values = 0.72, P<0.0001), but differed by several orders of magnitude (median [range] ratio of RAST inhibition/ELISA = 316 [7-26(80)]. There was a systematic bias: as the absolute values increased, the difference in the measurements increased. The rat urine standards used were antigenically similar. A large contrast in RUA values obtained from the two assays was observed in this study. This may be primarily due to methodological differences, but variations in antibody specificities or composition of allergenic epitopes in the air samples may contribute. The results demonstrate that standardization of methods and antibodies is necessary before interlaboratory comparisons can be made.