A retrospective study of the relative utility of electrophoresis in the investigation of serum proteins
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background
Serum protein electrophoresis (SPE) is widely used for diagnosis, management and monitoring of different immune disorders. Serum protein alterations provide valuable insights about these disorders. Electrophoresis separates proteins based on their physical properties, and the subsets of these proteins are used in interpreting the results. The purpose of this study was to analyze the results of pathological and non-pathological SPE of Ecuadorian patients.
Methods
A retrospective observational study was conducted using data of pathological (871 samples) and non-pathological (752 samples) serum protein electrophoresis data of 1623 patients who attended the Gamma Clinical Laboratory of Portoviejo, province of Manabi, Ecuador. Bivariate and exploratory factorial analysis were done using following parameters: age, sex, survival, laboratory diagnosis according to electrophoretogram.
Results
The highest frequency of deaths occurred in females (52.9%). The most frequent pathological outcomes were polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia (49.5%), acute inflammation (21.1%), and monoclonal gammopathy (14.70%). Exploratory factorial analysis revealed that the results of pathological SPE were mainly influenced by albumin and ã-globulin fractions followed by á1-globulin, á2-globulin, and â1-globulin-â2-globulin behavior that differed from non-pathological SPE. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was considered adequate for data analysis, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly significant (p<0.001), corroborating that factor analysis is useful for the data set.
Conclusions
This evidence warrants the need for rigorous analysis of globulin concentration in SPE to avoid biased diagnosis based solely on visual inspection of patterns in the electrophoretogram. Special attention should be paid to the relationships between fractions that show the greatest influence on SPE results.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The journal allows the authors to hold the copyright without restrictions and allow the authors to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
References
Salamatmanesh M, McCudden CR, McCurdy A, Booth RA. Monoclonal protein reference change value as determined by gel-based serum protein electrophoresis. Clin Biochem 2018;51:61-5. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.10.006.
Bravo García-Morato M, Padilla-Merlano B, Nozal P, et al. Laboratory guidelines for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with monoclonal gammopathies. Rev Clin Esp 2016;216:128-34. doi: 10.1016/j.rce.2015.09.002.
Booth RA, McCudden CR, Balion CM, et al. Candidate recommendations for protein electrophoresis reporting from the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists Monoclonal Gammopathy Working Group. Clin Biochem 2018;51:10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.10.013.
Dasgupta A, Wahed A. Protein electrophoresis and immunofixation. In: Clinical chemistry, immunology and laboratory quality control.1st ed. Elsevier; 2021.pp.489-511. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-815960-6.00021-2.
Genzen JR, Murray DL, Abel G, et al. Screening and diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathies: an international survey of laboratory practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2018;142:507-15. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0128-CP.
Regeniter A, Siede WH. Peaks and tails: evaluation of irregularities in capillary serum protein electrophoresis. Clin Biochem 2018;51: 48-55. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.09.017.
Turner KA, Frinack JL, Ettore MW, et al. An international multi-center serum protein electrophoresis accuracy and M-protein isotyping study. Part I: Factors impacting limit of quantitation of serum protein electrophoresis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:533-46. doi: 10.1515/CCLM-2019-1104.
Wiencek JR, Duh SH, Christenson RH. Proteins: analysis and interpretation in serum, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid. In: Contemporary practice in clinical chemistry. Elsevier; 2020.pp.365-90. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-815499-1.00022-3.
Caravaca-Fontán F, Gutiérrez E, Delgado Lillo R, Praga M. Monoclonal gammopathies of renal significance. Nefrología 2017;37:465-77. doi: 10.1016/j.nefro.2017.03.012.
Cárdenas Fernández MC, Pérez Surribas D, Pérez Garay R, et al. Vertical cutoff methods in serum protein electrophoresis for the measurement of monoclonal protein concentrations: Which is best? Clinica Chimica Acta 2020;510:573-80. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.07.051.
Howard BM, Kuh A, Rezavi LA, Caturegli P. A Comparison of gel (Hydragel 30) and capillary (Capillarys III Tera) electrophoresis for the characterization of human serum proteins. Pract Lab Med 2021;25:e00233. doi: 10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00233.
Moreno DF, Rosiñol L, Cibeira MT, Bladé J, Fernández De Larrea C. Treatment of patients with monoclonal gammopathy of clinical significance. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:5131. doi: 10.3390/cancers13205131.
Murata K, McCash S, Landgren CO. Monoclonal gammopathies. In: Clinical immunology: principles and practice. Rich RR, Fleisher TA, Shearer WT, Schroeder HW, Frew AJ, Weyand CM,eds. 5th ed. Elsevier; 2019.pp.1079-93.e1. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7020-6896-6.00080-6.
Perlot Q, Hermans C, Vekemans MC. Rare manifestations of monoclonal gammopathies: About two clinical cases and literature review. Revue de Medecine Interne 2023;44:307-10. doi: 10.1016/j.revmed.2023.03.005.
Cohecha A, Niño S, De Arco-Canoles O. Efectos en la salud de los agricultores latinoamericanos expuestos a plaguicidas: una revisión sistemática 1991 – 2018. Revista de Toxicología 2021;38:22-8.
Singh G. Serum and urine protein electrophoresis and serum-free light chain assays in the diagnosis and monitoring of monoclonal gammopathies. J Appl Laby Med 2020;5:1358-71. doi: 10.1093/jalm/jfaa153.
Serra N, Facundo C, Canal C, et al. Three cases of monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance after kidney transplantation. De novo C3 glomerulopathy. Nefrología 2019;39:198-201. doi: 10.1016/j.nefro.2018.03.008.
Mateos MV, Bladé J, Lahuerta JJ, San-Miguel J. Management of smoldering myeloma: recommendations of the Spanish Myeloma Group. Med Clin (Barc) 2017;148:517-23. doi:10.1016/j.medcli.2017.02.012.
Feinberg D, Paul B, Kang Y. The promise of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy in multiple myeloma. Cell Immunol 2019;345. doi:10.1016/j.cellimm.2019.103964.
Bora K. Distribution of multiple myeloma in India: Heterogeneity in incidence across age, sex and geography. Cancer Epidemiol 2019;59:215-20. doi:10.1016/j.canep.2019.02.010.
Berni Wennekers A, Martín Azara MP, Dourdil Sahun V, et al. Thirteen treated of acute renal failure secondary to multiple myeloma with high cut off filters. Nefrologia 2016;36:418-26. doi:10.1016/j.nefro.2016.03.011.
Vélez Arteaga DA, Sosa Fernández-Aballí L, Zambrano Mera J, Howland Álvarez I. Serum protein electrophoresis associated with dysproteinemia in ecuadorian patients. QhaliKay Revista de Ciencias de la Salud 2021;5:8. Spanish. doi:10.33936/qkrcs.v5i1.2941.
Talledo Pinargote D, Zamora Cedeño A, Sosa Fernández-Aballi L, Campos García G, Howland Álvarez I. Immunotyping and quantification of free light chains in Ecuadorian patients with monoclonal gammopathy. Rev Ecuat Med Cienc Biol 2021;42:123-32. Spanish. doi:10.26807/remcb.v42i2.905.
Dhellemmes L, Leclercq L, Höchsmann A, et al. Critical parameters for highly efficient and reproducible polyelectrolyte multilayer coatings for protein separation by capillary electrophoresis. J Chromatogr A 2023;1695. doi: 10.1016/ j.chroma.2023.463912.
Fermand JP, Bridoux F, Dispenzieri A, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of clinical significance: a novel concept with therapeutic implications. Blood 2018;132:1478-85. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-04-839480.
Gozzetti A, Guarnieri A, Zamagni E, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS): real‐world data on outcomes and prognostic factors. Am J Hematol 2022;97:877-84. doi: 10.1002/ajh.26566.
Hajba L, Jeong S, Chung DS, Guttman A. Capillary gel electrophoresis of proteins: historical overview and recent advances. TrAC - Trends Analytical Chemistry. 2023;162: 117024. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2023.117024
Jain P, Choudhary R, Harith AK, Yadav C. Evaluation of double m-band on serum protein electrophoresis simulating biclonal gammopathy: a case report. Indian J Clin Biochem 2022;37:247-9. doi:10.1007/s12291-020-00929-y.
Le ATH, Krylova SM, Krylov SN. Kinetic capillary electrophoresis in screening oligonucleotide libraries for protein binders. TrAC - Trends Analytical Chemistry.2023;162: 117061. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2023.117061
Padelli M, Labouret T, Labarre M, et al. Systematic overestimation of human serum albumin by capillary zone electrophoresis method due to monoclonal immunoglobulin interferences. Clinica Chimica Acta 2019;491:74-80. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2019.01.010.
Ríos-Tamayo R, Paiva B, Lahuerta JJ, López JM, Duarte RF. Monoclonal gammopathies of clinical significance: a critical appraisal. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14: 5247. doi:10.3390/cancers14215247.
Boban MJ, De Elías R, Kiener O, Kiener G, Jarmi V, Barzón S. Evaluation of protein electrophoresis in the gamma zone: clinicopathological correspondence. Acta Bioquím Clín Latinoam 2017;51:213-33. Spanish.
Bramer M. Principles of data mining. 1st ed. Springer London; 2016. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-7307-6.
Puth MT, Neuhäuser M, Ruxton GD. Effective use of Spearman’s and Kendall’s correlation coefficients for association between two measured traits. Anim Behav 2015;102:77-84. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.01.010.
Xu W, Hou Y, Hung YS, Zou Y. A comparative analysis of Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau in normal and contaminated normal models. Signal Processing 2013;93:261-76. doi: 10.1016/ j.sigpro.2012.08.005.
Higgins V, Hooshmand S, Adeli K. Principal component and correlation analysis of biochemical and endocrine markers in a healthy pediatric population (CALIPER). Clin Biochem 2019;66:29-36. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2019 .02.004.
Vehkalahti K, Everitt BS. Multivariate analysis for the behavioral sciences. CRC Press; 2018. doi: 10.1201/9781351202275.
Shannon G, Jansen M, Williams K, et al. Gender equality in science, medicine, and global health: where are we at and why does it matter? Lancet 2019;393:560-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33135-0.
Oksuzyan A, Dańko MJ, Caputo J, Jasilionis D, Shkolnikov VM. Is the story about sensitive women and stoical men true? Gender differences in health after adjustment for reporting behavior. Soc Sci Med 2019;228:41-50. doi: 10.1016/ j.socscimed.2019.03.002.
Aunan JR, Cho WC, Søreide K. The biology of aging and cancer: a brief overview of shared and divergent molecular hallmarks. Aging Dis 2017;8:628-42. doi: 10.14336/AD.2017.0103.
Wahed A, Quesada A, Dasgupta A. Monoclonal gammopathies and its detection. In: Hematology and coagulation. 2nd ed. San Diego: Elsevier Science & Technology;2020.pp.113-26. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-814964-5.00007-3.
Vyas SG, Singh G. Location of monoclonal peak as a tool in checking specimen integrity. Pract Lab Med 2017;8:49-51. doi: 10.1016/j.plabm.2017. 04.005.
Sethi S, Fervenza FC, Rajkumar SV. Spectrum of manifestations of monoclonal gammopathy-associated renal lesions. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2016;25:127-37. doi: 10.1097/MNH. 0000000000000201.
Oliveros Conejero R, Pascual Usandizaga P, Garrido Chércoles A. Optimización de flujos de trabajo y paneles de cribado para la detección de gammapatias monoclonales malignas. Adv Lab Med 2020;1:20190028. Spanish. doi: 10.1515/ almed-2019-0028.
McCudden CR, Booth RA, Lin DCC, McCurdy A, Rupani N, Kew A. Synoptic reporting for protein electrophoresis and immunofixation Clin Biochem 2018;51:21-8. doi: 10.1016/ j.clinbiochem.2017.09.020.