Search

Objectives Biotinidase Deficiency (BD) is an autosomal recessive metabolic disorder. However, the relationship between genotype and biochemical phenotype has not been completely elucidated yet. But still, some mutations are accepted to be associated with profound or partial deficiency. We aimed to evaluate the results of biochemical enzyme activity in accordance with the presence of genetic mutations and investigate the correlation between genotype and biochemical phenotype together in the study. Methods This retrospective study was carried out using data from medical records of 133 infants detected by the newborn screening followed by serum biotinidase activity (BA) detection with semi-quantitative colorimetric method. Mutation analysis was performed to confirm the diagnosis. In addition, the expected biochemical phenotype based on the known mutant alleles were compared with the observed biochemical phenotype. Results When confirmed with mutation analysis results, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of serum BA with spectrophotometric method was 93.1% and 95.1%, respectively. In 93.98% of the cases conformity was observed between the biochemical phenotype and the genotype. The c.1330 G>C(p.D444H) and c.470 G>A (p.Arg157His) were the most common allelic variants with frequencies of 63.69% and 33.75%, respectively. Conclusions The diagnostic test is supposed to have a high sensitivity to identify asymptomatic BD patients. Apparently healthy cases with almost normal enzyme activity and a variant allele in the genetic analysis were reported to present symptoms under stress conditions, which should be kept in mind. This study can be accepted as an informative report as it may contribute to the literature in terms of the allelic frequency and determination of the relation between genotype and biochemical phenotype. Also, method verification including the assessment of possible effects of non-genetic factors on BA according to the certain mutation types is warranted.

Objective Hemoglobinopathies are a common public health problem in Turkey. In the screening of these disorders in population, cation-exchange high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is accepted as the gold standard method. In this study, the aim was to assess four different HPLC devices used in hemoglobinopathy screening. Materials and methods A total of 58 blood samples were analyzed with four different HPLC methods (Bio-Rad variant II, Agilent 1100, Tosoh G8 and Trinity Ultra2 trademarks). Results The comparison study demonstrated a good correlation between the results of each HPLC analyzer and the reference value obtained by averaging all the HbA2 results belonging to the methods tested in the study [ (Tosoh G8 (r=0.988), Bio-Rad variant II (r=0.993), Agilent 1100 (r=0.98) and Trinity Ultra2 (r=0.992) ]. HbA2 determination in the presence of HbE was interfered in both Bio-Rad variant II and Tosoh G8. Conclusion The analyzers were found to have compatible HbA2 results but with accompanying different degrees of proportional and systematic biases. HPLC analyzers may be affected by different hemoglobin variants at different HbA2 concentrations, which is an important point to take into consideration during the evaluation of HbA2 results in thalassemia screening.

Objective:Macroprolactinemia detection is important to avoid unneccessary tests and overtreatment. High prolactin levels require routine screening and clinicians must be aware of macroprolactinemia frequency encountered with the method in use. In this study we aimed to determine the macroprolactinemia rate in our laboratory.Methods:Prolactin results of different patients analysed on two different immunoassay systems within two consecutive years were evaluated. Analyses were performed on Beckman Coulter UniCelResults:For the samples analysed on DxI800 (n=14,958) hyperprolactinemia frequency was 8.1% (n=1208). One of 138 samples submitted for macroprolactin analysis was positive, while three of them were in the gray-zone. For the samples analysed on CobasConclusion:A difference was found between two immunoassay systems used in our laboratory in terms of macroprolactinemia rate. However, inability of simultaneous analyses on both systems, lack of evaluation with gel filtration chromatography, and heterophile antibody blocking tube were the limitations.