Immunomagnetic beads‐based isolation of erythropoietins from urine and blood for sports anti‐doping control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) technical document for erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) analysis (TD2014EPO), double-blotting of serum/plasma samples is mandatory for all analysis by isoelectric focusing (IEF) and for the confirmation procedures (CP) performed by SDS-PAGE or SAR-PAGE. The goal is to prevent potential cross-reactions of the secondary antibody with remaining proteins in the purified samples. To this end, we have developed an immunopurification method of ESA in serum/plasma samples using a combination of streptavidin-coated immunomagnetic beads and biotinylated anti-EPO polyclonal antibodies. Here we report that this immunomagnetic bead-based purification allows the analysis of serum/plasma samples by single-blotting. Serum and plasma samples, either intact or spiked with different ESAs, were immunopurified and analyzed by single-blotting, after SAR-PAGE or IEF using a cross-reaction minimized secondary antibody coupled to HRP. The results show that when samples are immunopurified according to this strategy, there is no non-specific binding when single-blotting is performed after SAR-PAGE. With IEF, we observe a faint smearing, however, in the pH gradient outside the ESA detection region. These interferences did not alter ESA profiles of spiked urinary samples or of samples received for routine testing. This approach was compared to the MAIIA monoliths purification or to the isolation of ESAs with other combinations of immunomagnetic reagents (ie, anti-Mouse IgG-coated magnetic beads and anti-EPO mAb). The recovery of ESAs was shown to be significant for serum/plasma samples. Our results suggest that single-blotting could be performed on serum/plasma samples without non-specific interferences. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".