Publikationsserver
Pitfalls in complement analysis: A systematic literature review of assessing complement activation
Background: The complement system is an essential component of our innate defense and plays a vital role in the pathogenesis of many diseases. Assessment of complement activation is critical in monitoring both disease progression and response to therapy. Complement analysis requires accurate and...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Contributor: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Philipps-Universität Marburg
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | PDF Full Text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background: The complement system is an essential component of our innate
defense and plays a vital role in the pathogenesis of many diseases. Assessment
of complement activation is critical in monitoring both disease progression and
response to therapy. Complement analysis requires accurate and standardized
sampling and assay procedures, which has proven to be challenging.
Objective: We performed a systematic analysis of the current methods used to
assess complement components and reviewed whether the identified studies
performed their complement measurements according to the recommended
practice regarding pre-analytical sample handling and assay technique. Results
are supplemented with own data regarding the assessment of key complement
biomarkers to illustrate the importance of accurate sampling and measuring of
complement components.
Methods: A literature search using the Pubmed/MEDLINE database was
performed focusing on studies measuring the key complement components
C3, C5 and/or their split products and/or the soluble variant of the terminal
C5b-9 complement complex (sTCC) in human blood samples that were
published between February 2017 and February 2022. The identified studies
were reviewed whether they had used the correct sample type and techniques
for their analyses.
Results: A total of 92 out of 376 studies were selected for full-text analysis.
Forty-five studies (49%) were identified as using the correct sample type and
techniques for their complement analyses, while 25 studies (27%) did not use
the correct sample type or technique. For 22 studies (24%), it was not specified
which sample type was used.
Conclusion: A substantial part of the reviewed studies did not use the
appropriate sample type for assessing complement activation or did not mention which sample type was used. This deviation from the standardized
procedure can lead to misinterpretation of complement biomarker levels and
hampers proper comparison of complement measurements between studies.
Therefore, this study underlines the necessity of general guidelines for
accurate and standardized complement analysis |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1007102 |