results of an international round robin for serum and whole-blood
TRANSCRIPT
1689
Clinical Chemistry 42:10
1689-1694 (1996)
Results of an international round robin for serumand whole-blood folate
ELAINE W. GuNTER,l* BARBARA A. BOWMAN,’ SAMUEL P. CAUDILL,’ DELLA B. TWITE,1
MYRON J. ADAMS,2 and ERIC J. SAMpsoN’
Because of the increasing significance of folate nutriture to
public health, a “round robin” interlaboratory comparisonstudy was conducted to assess differences among methods.
Twenty research laboratories participated in a 3-day anal-
ysis of six serum and six whole-blood pools. Overall means,
SDs, and CVs derived from these results were compared
within and across method types. Results reported for serumand whole-blood folate demonstrated overall CVs of 2 7.6%
and 35.7%, respectively, across pools and two- to ninefold
differences in concentrations between methods, with thegreatest variation occurring at critical low folate concentra-tions. Although results for senun pools were less variable
than those for whole-blood pools, substantial intermethodvariation still occurred. The overall results underscore the
urgent need for developing and validating reference meth-ods for serum and whole-blood folate and for properly
characterized reference materials. For evaluating study orclinical data, method-specific reference ranges (established
with clinical confirmation of values for truly folate-deficient
individuals) must be used.
INDEXING TERMS: intermethod comparison #{149}radioassay #{149}chro-matography. microbiological assay #{149}ion capture #{149}chemilumi-
nescence
In addition to its requirement as an essential nutrient for
preventing megaloblastic anemia and its role as a cofactor in
one-carbon transfers required for DNA replication, the water-
soluble vitamin folate has assumed even greater epidemiological
importance in recent years because of its relation to the preven-tion of neural tube defects [1, 2] and to homocysteine metabo-
Divisions of’ Environmental Health Laboratory Sciences and 2 Birth Defects
and Developmental Disabilities, National Center for Environmental Health,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA 30341-3724.
Author for correspondence. Fax 770-488-4609; e-mail [email protected].
Use of trade names is for the purpose of identification only and does notconstitute endorsement by the Public Health Service or the US Department ofHealth and Human Services.
Received January 19, 1996; accepted May 16, 1996.
lism in prevention of cardiovascular disease [3, 4]. Serum or
plasma folate concentrations are considered to reflect recent
dietary intake, whereas erythrocyte folate concentrations areindicative of body stores [5].
Typical study designs rely on retrospective evaluation of
banked specimens for folate analyses in serum or erythrocytes,necessitating the comparison of biochemical folate results be-
tween several large-scale studies (and introducing another vari-
able, long-term stability of folate in stored specimens). How-ever, results generated by various methods may not be
comparable, as can be discerned by examining external profi-
ciency testing survey results, such as those for serum folate fromthe College of American Pathologists (CAP) [6]. Such surveys,however, generally include only serum samples and do not
address variability among analytical methodologies for erythro-cyte folate.3 The UK National External Quality Assessment
Scheme (NEQAS) is unusual in having an erythrocyte folate
testing material but uses expired blood-bank materials ratherthan materials prepared as typical clinical specimens (personalcommunication, Mj. Lewis, NEQAS hematology coordinator,
October 1995). Comparability of folate assays among Europeanlaboratories was an objective of the European Community
FLAIR Concerted Action No. 10 Folate Intercomparison Study1992-1993 [7]. Specimens in this study also were not typical
clinical specimens but rather aliquots of Bio-Rad Labs. (Her-cules, CA) Lyphochek lyophilized whole-blood control pools.
Additional major problems are the lack of accepted Refer-
ence or Definitive Methods for analysis in serum or wholeblood, as well as Standard Reference Materials in these matrices.
The UK National Institute of Biologics, Standard, and Controls(NLBSC), in response to requests of the International Commit-
tee for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) Folate andVitamin B 12 Committee, is currently undertaking the prepara-
tion of lyophilized whole-blood pools as a tentative reference
material; target values, however, are being determined as a
‘At the March 1996 meeting of the Ligand Survey Committee of CAP,
however, the Committee agreed to consider the implementation of severalerythrocyte folate challenges in 1997 (personal communication, avid Witte,chairman).
1690 Gunter et al.: Serum and whole-blood folate
consensus of different methods (Susan Thorpe, NIBSC, per-sonal communication).4
Serum and erythrocyte folate data from the Third National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NT-lANES III,
1988-1994) will be released in 1996 (VVright J, Gunter EW,Johnson CL, et al., ms. in preparation). These data will be useful
for establishing US normative ranges and for assessing the
prevalence of inadequate folate status in the US population.
Because the folate analyses from NT-lANES III were performed
with the Bio-Rad QuantaPhase II radioassay (RA) kit [8, 9],
which was produced in response to the need to correct the
calibration of the original QuantaPhase kit [JO], it is importantto be able to compare these data with those generated by other
types of analyses [11]. Currently, the major analytical ap-
proaches are microbiological assay, RA, chemiluminescence,magnetic separation, HPLC, and ion capture. A few laboratories
use GC-MS for clinical research. Except for microbiological
assay, HPLC, and GC-MS, most methods are based on com-
petitive binding by a specific folate-binding protein.
Materials and MethodsTo assess the potential variability among methods, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invited clinicians
and laboratorians actively involved in folate research, as well as
manufacturers of frequently used assay kits, to participate in a
round-robin interlaboratory comparison study. To prepare a
series of serum and whole-blood pools with concentrations
spanning the ranges of values seen in healthy as well as deficient
subjects, we screened serum and EDTA-anticoagulated blood
specimens collected by the Emory University Hospital BloodCollection Services under an agreement with CDC (including
an omnibus informed consent and Human Subjects Review
protocol). The screening specimens were analyzed in the
NHANES laboratory at CDC by the Bio-Rad QuantaPhase II
RA kit, used exactly as it was for NIL-lANES III, with serum
quality-control pools at four concentrations (“anemic,” low,
medium, and high folate concentrations) and three additionalconcentrations of whole blood pools, all of which had been in
use for several years.
SPECIMENS
Of the 20 normal, noninfectious, apparently healthy adult men
and women donors screened, 12 were selected as having appro-
priate serum or whole blood folate concentrations. No effort
was made to add external pteroylglutamic acid (PGA) or
5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-MTHF) to the pools or to char-
coal-treat any of the collected materials to contrive folate-
deficient samples. We also did not specifically request or exclude
donors who were taking folic acid supplements. Because multi-
vitamin supplement use is prevalent in the US population,
serumlplasma concentrations exceeding 45-68 nmolIL (20-30
‘ Nonstandard abbreviations: N1BSC, National Institute of Biologics, Stan-dards, and Controls; ICSH, International Committee for Standardization inHaematology; RA, radioassay; PGA, pteroylglutamic acid; 5-MTHF, 5-methyl-tetrahydrofolate; NHANES III, Third National Health and Nutrition Examina-tion Survey; and CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
ng/mL) are frequently observed clinically. Our aim was to
prepare pools that would resemble samples typical of those
analyzed in most clinical laboratories.
Blood was collected in 250-mL bottles by phlebotomy from
the fasting donors as either EDTA-anticoagulated or nonanti-
coagulated whole blood. The nonanticoagulated blood was
allowed to stand for 2 h, covered with aluminum foil, at ambient
temperature to allow maximum serum yield. We determined
hematocrits of the screening specimens to ensure that no
potential donor was anemic. After serum was separated from the
clotted blood by centrifugation, 1 mg of L-ascorbic acid (Sigma
Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) was added per milliliter of serumto enhance the stability of the folic acid during storage. Whole-
blood materials were allowed to stand at least 90 mm after
collection at ambient temperature to allow maximum hydrolysis
of the polyglutamyl folates by endogenous folate conjugase.
Whole-blood pools were diluted 10-fold, i.e., 50 mL of whole
blood with 450 mL of 10 g/L ascorbic acid diluent. This
combination of ascorbic acid concentration and the 1:10 dilution
to prepare the hemolysate was chosen because of its traditional
use in microbiological folate methods [12]. Users of all other
methods (e.g., RAs with a 1:11 initial dilution) were instructed to
correct their calculations accordingly.
All pools were dispensed in l.0-mL aliquots into 2.0-mL
high-density polypropylene cryovials (Nalge, Rochester, NY)
labeled with appropriate pool identifiers (e.g., SFOL-0l, RBCF-
04). The aliquots were promptly frozen at -70 #{176}Cuntil ship-
ment. Extra aliquots were retained by CDC. Each laboratory
was sent a shipment on dry ice containing six vials of each of the
12 pools and instructed to perform two determinations per vial
on two vials per day for 3 days, for a total of 12 measurementsper pool. No effort was made to ensure that the participating
laboratories did not know the identity of the pools; rather, the
objective was to assess the degree of comparability among
leading clinical research laboratories. Laboratorians were in-
structed to report their actual results and key information
describing their assay method such as calibration material,
throughput, and expected reference ranges. Although we had
originally measured the hematocrit of each donor pool, partic-
ipating laboratorians were requested to report results as whole-
blood folate, in nanograms per milliliter.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS
Of the 20 participating laboratories, 11 were in the US and 9
were international. The participants included two manufactur-
ers, five government laboratories, six academic laboratories, and
seven clinical research facilities.Eight laboratories used the Lactobacillas casei microbiological
assay, some following the traditional assay set-up in culture
tubes and others using microtiter plates and readers. Eight
laboratories used RAs: Bio-Rad QuantaPhase II; Simultrac S#{174}
and Simultrac S No-Boil#{174}(ICN/Becton Dickinson, Orange-
burg, NY); and Dual Count Solid Phase No-Boil#{174}(Diagnostic
Products Corp., Los Angeles, CA). Two laboratories used
chemiluminescence methods: Corning MagicLite#{174} and ACS:
180#{174}(Ciba-Corning, E. Walpole, MA). Two newly developed
Lab (method) SFOL.O1 SFOL-02 SFOL-03 SFOL-04 SFOL-O5 SFOL-08
1 (M) 69.91 (1.68) 5.48 (0.48) 27.61 (0.86) 38.28 (0.90) 19.91 (0.82) 0.90 (0.12)
2 (M) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 (M) 59.51 (12.42) 4.92 (2.26) 29.24 (3.96) 38.50 (3.85) 15.41 (2.54) 3.36 (2.80)
4 (M) 43.68 (1.65) 3.79 (0.45) 27.18 (3.23) 34.64 (3.40) 12.31 (1.47) 1.59 (0.39)5 (M) 55.30 (3.81) 4.69 (0.26) 27.60 (2.17) 42.28 (3.21) 15.55 (1.15) 2.32 (0.52)6 (M) 67.95 (5.78) 5.21 (0.63) 29.65 (2.34) 42.70 (1.72) 16.35 (0.87) 3.08 (0.15)
7 (M) 53.64 (3.46) 4.92 (0.81) 24.56 (1.94) 37.92 (3.83) 13.67 (1.38) 3.45 (0.28)8 (M) 58.75 (3.30) 4.53 (0.19) 26.65 (1.88) 37.69 (2.74) 15.18 (1.49) 2.72 (0.56)9 (B-R) >458 3.44 (0.11) 22.29 (3.16) 39.70 (6.16) 12.89 (1.48) 3.50 (0.29)
10 (B.R) >45#{176} 3.81 (0.29) 21.93 (1.09) 38.13 (2.53) 13.46 (0.55) 4.15 (0.20)11 (B-R) 65.05 (12.01) 3.53 (0.28) 22.26 (1.34) 35.75 (2.59) 13.05 (0.37) 3.67 (0.12)12 (B-R) 51.66 (5.21) 3.68 (0.11) 19.73 (0.66) 30.69 (1.38) 12.07 (0.28) 4.05 (0.11)13 (B-D) 56.91 (3.10) 5.47 (0.29) 22.25 (0.86) 34.47 (1.75) 14.95 (0.48) 5.55 (0.15)14 (B-D) 52.36 (10.19) 5.27 (0.32) 22.46 (2.35) 30.97 (4.33) 14.36 (1.15) 5.27 (0.26)15 (B-D NB) 71.23 (3.64) 7.56 (1.76) 28.26 (2.58) 35.63 (2.97) 19.55 (2.82) 5.26 (0.57)16 (DPC) 78.03 (8.00) 7.44 (0.74) 34.28 (3.65) 48.57 (3.54) 21.03 (1.64) 7.69 (0.64)17 (ACS) 81.20 (9.72) 9.17 (1.82) 30.71 (3.31) 47.62 (7.94) 22.23 (2.93) 8.36 (1.69)
18 (ML) 63.19 (4.57) 9.40 (4.72) 27.92 (2.53) 42.49 (4.74) 19.32 (2.18) 7.74 (1.66)19 (IC) 39.79 (1.18) 5.87 (0.58) 23.80 (0.71) 30.11 (1.09) 16.91 (0.74) 5.91 (0.34)20 (HPLC) 24.12 (1.37) 2.70 (0.42) 14.59 (1.35) 19.53 (1.62) 7.76 (0.71) 3.16 (0.33)All lab mean 58.37 5.31 25.42 37.14 15.58 4.30
All lab SD 14.18 1.88 4.54 6.65 3.60 2.06All lab CV, % 24.29 35.41 17.86 17.89 23.10 48.00Range of means 24.12-81.20 2.70-9.40 14.59-34.28 19.53-48.57 7.76-22.23 0.90-8.36Range of CVs, % 2.4-20.9 2.9-50.2 3.0-16.2 2.3-16.7 2.3-16.5 2.7-83.3
Clinical Chemistry 42, No. 10, 1996 1691
assays were also used, ion-capture IMX#{174}(Abbott Labs., Abbott
Park, IL) [13] and HPLC with fluorescence detection (unpub-
lished observations, CM Pfeiffer andJF Gregory, 1995), by one
laboratory each.
For calibration materials, folinic acid was used in two of the
microbiological assays, 5-MTHF in one chemiluminescence
assay and the HPLC assay, and PGA in the remaining assays.
STATISTICS
For each laboratory, the Inean, SD, and CV were computed for
each pool. No attempt was made to separate out among-day,
among-vial, or pure within-run analytical variance when com-
puting SD and CV. To obtain an all-laboratory mean, SD, and
CV, we first computed the mean and SD of the laboratory
means for each pool. Results from any laboratory with a mean
lower than this preliminary all-laboratory mean, minus three
times the corresponding all-laboratory SD, were then excluded,
and a final all-laboratory mean, SD, and CV were computed.
Although the HPLC laboratory provided data from two separate
runs, only one set of results was used so that accuracy and
precision would be determined on the same basis as for the other
laboratories.
Results and DiscussionIndividual serum and whole-blood folate results reported by
each laboratory, as well as the overall results, are presented in
Tables 1 and 2. Results are grouped by similar method type and
are reported in nmol/L (1 nmol/L = 2.265 ng/mL). Laborato-
ries 6, 7, and 8 are grouped to facilitate comparison because they
all used the same version of the L. casei assay. Similarly,
laboratories 9-12 used the Bio-Rad RA, and 13 and 14 used the
Becton Dickinson boil RA.
For pool SFOL-01, two laboratories reported only “>45
nmol/L” and not a diluted specimen result for the highest-
concentration sample; thus, their results for this sample were not
included in the final calculations. Laboratory 14 reported serum
results only, and laboratory 2 reported whole blood results only.
Mid-range folate concentrations appeared to have the best
agreement. Variation at low and high concentrations tended to
be greater than mid-range concentrations, as seen for high
whole blood pool RBCF-01, low whole blood pool RBCF-02,
high serum pool SFOL-04, and low serum pool SFOL-06.
Unlike proficiency-testing challenges, which are essentially aone-time snapshot of method performance, the objective of this
round robin was to present performance averaged over 3 days,
N/A. results not available.
Table 1. Serum folate, mean (SD), by pool, nmol/LSerum pool
Methodcodes: M, L. casei microbiological assay: B-R, Bio-Rad QuantaPhase II 25l radioassay; B-D, ICN/BectonDickinson SimultracS 125 radloassay; B-D NB,
ICN/Becton Dickinson Simultrac S No-boil 1251 radioassay; DPC, Diagnostic Products SPNB Dual Count 1251 radioassay; ACS, Ciba-Coming ACS:180 chemilumines-cence assay; ML, Ciba-Corning Magic Lite chemiluminescence assay; HPLC, in-house assay [16); IC. Abbott Mx ion-capture assay.
b Specimen not diluted for high value (45 nmol/L high standard).
Lab (method) RBCF-O1 RBCF.02 RBCF.03 RBCF-04 RBCF.05 RBCF-06
1 (M) 561.81 (28.53) 151.09 (6.80) 303.79 (10.33) 644.77 (52.32) 451.77 (132.44) 228.48 (16.58)
2 (M) 592.01 (44.73) 161.64 (24.06) 357.64 (42.17) 830.23 (99.32) 546.71 (81.24) 340.32 (51.54)3 (M) 645.62 (130.58) 180.65 (30.81) 456.98 (72.73) 999.92 (212.11) 638.99 (133.63) 381.45 (84.49)4 (M) 399.55 (30.07) 99.85 (14.60) 308.23 (52.68) 452.25 (55.10) 392.98 (21.52) 262.17 (58.43)5 (M) 541.11 (63.25) 150.95 (14.04) 345.75 (47.44) 812.17 (62.51) 510.49 (35.37) 341.73 (42.57)6 (M) 555.87 (29.87) 132.50 (6.07) 326.16 (15.15) 763.87 (38.10) 465.27 (19.50) 281.99 (8.17)
7 (M) 441.30 (46.56) 127.78 (11.36) 318.04 (16.15) 732.92 (29.21) 426.76 (20.21) 263.12 (17.91)
8 (M) 499.62 (40.50) 122.69 (9.10) 332.77 (24.10) 737.64 (62.63) 475.46 (61.88) 270.67 (29.67)
9 (B-R) 470.44 (55.54) 64.74 (3.35) 170.40 (15.21) 349.23 (41.61) 238.88 (26.37) 124.65 (7.01)
10 (B-R) 465.46 (22.43) 61.53 (2.33) 160.82 (9.99) 326.92 (8.82) 215.36 (6.44) 116.84 (2.64)
11 (B-R) 489.99 (44.72) 63.98 (4.48) 165.57 (11.78) 317.84 (20.74) 222.94 (19.41) 121.57 (8.85)
12 (B-R) 403.85 (23.40) 73.12 (2.76) 168.63 (5.83) 332.92 (14.28) 226.24 (13.66) 130.20 (4.58)13 (B-D) 595.32 (25.95) 140.81 (6.07) 283.50 (11.17) 684.03 (30.17) 411.85 (12.29) 244.62 (11.10)
14 (B.D) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 (B-D NB) 666.61 (34.58) 149.26 (22.18) 285.09 (42.04) 629.20 (53.36) 469.70 (54.28) 229.63 (25.96)
16 (DPC) 916.76 (61.30) 141.60 (11.49) 352.59 (38.91) 521.52 (46.43) 415.06 (39.39) 241.41 (21.96)
17 (ACS) 264.06 (37.67) 63.99 (14.13) 172.52 (28.38) 207.63 (33.54) 168.52 (29.09) 132.88 (29.04)
18 (ML) 436.01 (59.89) 79.84 (21.69) 214.04 (44.53) 366.93 (43.76) 256.89 (38.59) 156.85 (25.88)19 (IC) 464.70 (33.87) 120.23 (5.75) 250.09 (9.97) 309.17 (10.86) 297.47 (11.32) 226.50 (11.26)20 (HPLC) 101.68 (14.39) 72.54 (8.80) 165.96 (15.14) 411.53 (35.19) 240.82 (22.12) 130.04 (24.53)
Al) lab mean 500.62 113.58 270.45 548.98 372.22 222.38
All lab SD 165.57 39.23 86.44 226.90 134.65 82.91
All lab CV, % 33.07 34.54 31.96 41.33 36.17 37.28
Range of means 101.68-916.76 61.53-180.65 160.82-456.98 207.63-999.92 168.52-638.99 116.84-381.45Range of CVs, % 4.4-20.2 2.2-27.2 3.4-20.8 2.7-21.2 3.0-29.3 2.3-22.3
N/A, results not available.a Method codes as in Table 1.
1692 Gunter et al.: Serum and whole-blood folate
Table 2. Whole-blood folate, mean (SD), by pool, nmol/L.Whole-blood pool
with the average of 12 replicate measurements for each of the 12
pools. The variation among laboratories was especially striking
for the whole-blood pools, which varied from threefold (pool
RBCF-06) to ninefold (pool RBCF-01). Results for serum pools
varied from twofold (pool SFOL-03) to ninefold (pool SFOL-
06). Within pools, accuracy also differed markedly, as seen in the
extreme results reported for pool RBCF-0 1.
As stated earlier, the higher-concentration pools were not
achieved by adding purified PGA or 5-MTHF, but instead
reflect naturally occurring folate exposure. Clearly, some char-acteristic of pool RBCF-01 affected the HPLC method quanti-
fication more than did any of the other five whole-blood pools.
When results for this pool are excluded, the HPLC assay results
(laboratory 20) for pools RBCF-02 though RBCF-06 are very
similar to those for the Bio-Rad RA laboratories (labs 9-12).
However, the serum results for laboratory 20 (I-IPLC) are only
about half of those obtained by all other methods. This HPLC
method is specific for 5-MTHF, which constitutes ‘-90% of
circulating plasma folate, but the somewhat mixed results may
indicate a possible loss of folate during extraction.
Similarly, the results for pool RBCF-01 by laboratory 16,which used the Diagnostic Products RA, were extremely high
(917 nmol/L), but results for all other whole-blood pools by thismethod agreed more closely with the results by laboratory 13,
which used the Becton Dickinson boil RA. Serum results from
the Diagnostic Products assay, however, were more comparable
with the ACS:180 results (laboratory 17) than with those from
the Becton Dickinson assays.Within-laboratory precision also varied considerably within
and across methods, as seen in the summary entries for Tables I
and 2. The best overall precision results, as reflected by the
smallest CVs, were those of laboratories 6 (M), 12 (B-R), 13(B-D), and 19 (IC). The ion-capture (IMx) assay is the newest
addition to the folate assay methodology and, as can occur withmany new products, the results in the hands of laboratorians
using the newly adopted method may initially tend to be
somewhat less precise. Overall, the microbiological assay results
tended to have higher CVs than the RA group.
Traditionally, RA has been used clinically because of its
relative ease and greater throughput compared with the L. caseiassay. The RAs are calibrated, as are most of the microbiologicalassays, with PGA and take advantage of the fact that at pH 9.2
PGA and 5-MTHF have equal affinity for the folate-binding
protein. The best microbiological vs RA comparison can be
drawn from laboratories 6-8 (all of which used the same version
of the L. casei assay) and laboratories 9-12 (all of which used the
Bio-Rad RA). Within groups, each assay compares well withitself, but the two assays are not comparable across the range of
serum and whole-blood concentrations examined in the survey.The Bio-Rad RA was initially marketed with calibrator concen-
Lab/co.
B-D S
3.4-38.3
M-Lab 5
Clinical Chemisiiy 42, No. 10, 1996 1693
#{176}Codesas in Table 1.b Includescorrection for hematocrit in final calculation: NOT whole-blood folate as used in round robin.
trations to match the performance of the L. casei assay, but in
response to questions raised by Levine [10], the QuantaPhase II
assay was introduced in late 1993 with spectrophotometrically
verified PGA calibrator concentrations, resulting in a 30% shift
downward in measured folate concentrations. Except for pool
RBCF-0 I, results for the other five erythrocyte pools by this RA
are -50% lower, on average, than those from laboratories 6-8(all using the same L. casei assay). Serum results for the Bio-Rad
RA and laboratories 6-8, however, agree much more closely.
The results for the lower-concentration serum pools,
SFOL-02 and SFOL-06, were especially interesting. Too often,
clinical diagnoses or population assessments are made from
single measurements of serum or plasma folate. Such measure-ments are a problem, particularly because normal subjects and
patients with definite deficiency may have a substantial overlap
in values; accordingly, test results often include “borderline” or“indeterminate” ranges [14]. Clearly, it would be inappropriate
to use one set of reference ranges for all methods. Examples of
the variation in normal ranges cited by the some of the
participating laboratorians, or suggested by the manufacturer of
kits used, vary widely and are compared in Table 3.
In the FLAIR Folate Intercomparison, which preceded the
recalibration of the Bio-Rad QuantaPhase RA., the authors
concluded that most RAs tended to overestimate serum folate
content because standards were improperly calibrated and PGA
rather than 5-MTHF was used as the calibration material /7]. In
our study, however, the RAs as a class clearly did not overesti-
mate the serum folate. The chemiluminescence assays and the
Diagnostic Products RA had the highest overall values for serum
folate and demonstrated substantial bias with the lowest-con-
centration serum pools, SFOL-02 and SFOL-06.Using three different calibrator source materials did not have
a clear-cut effect but may have added to the overall variability.
According to the manufacturer (personal communication, ICN/
Becton Dickinson, December 1995), the chemistries for theAbbott Magic-Lite (using PGA calibrators) and ACS: 180 (using5-MTHF) are similar; however, we found that, although they
gave comparable results for the serum pools, their results for the
erythrocyte pools were quite different. The manufacturers’
suggested reference ranges for these assays vary slightly as well,which may be partially due to the different populations surveyedfor this purpose or may reflect true assay differences. Labora-
tories 1 and 5 used folinic acid as calibrator material, but these
laboratories are not necessarily more comparable with each
other than with other laboratories using the L. casei assay.Lacking a “gold standard” method or material, a definition of
which results are “correct” is impossible, in that all of thesemethods have inherent errors. We examined weighted linear
regressions of each laboratory’s mean results against the meansfor the same method type, separately for the serum and whole-
blood pools. For the eight microbiological assays, the slopes
varied by 0.8 1-1.22 for the serum pools and by 0.77-1.32 for the
whole-blood pools. For the eight RAs (collapsed together for
greater statistical power), the respective slope variances were
0.81-1.28 and 0.75-1.15, and for the two chemiluminescence
assays they were 0.91, 1.10 and 0.71, 1.29. (Results for the
ion-capture and HPLC assays are not presented because they
represent only one laboratory per method type.)
Table 3. VariatIon in reference ranges used by some participatIng laboratorIes or suggested by manufacturers of assay kits.Folate range
Lab 15(B-D S-NB)
DPC
ACSM-LB-R
M-Lab 1M-Lab 2M-Labs 6-8
“Low”“Indeterminate”“Normal”
“Low”
“Normal”
“Low”“Indeterminate”“Normal”“Normal”“Normal”“Deficient”“Normal”
“Deficient”“Normal”“Normal”“Normal”“Deficient”“Possible deficiency”“Probable normal”“Normal”
In serum, nmol/L<3.6
3.6-5.0
>5.0
<3.4
6.8-38.55.9-39.2
>8.2<3.4
3.4-46.7<6.3
7.0-28,0>6.85.00-50.0
<4.5
4.5-6.1
>6.1
4.5-22.7
In erythrocytes,nmol/L RBCb
<283
�283
<272
�272-1948
<227227-453
396-1586328-1110
272-974<136
215-1291
337-1461
>317500-1300
<227227-340
>340317-770
1694 Gunter et al.: Serum and whole-blood folate
In summary, our comparisons of serum and whole-blood folate
concentrations measured in 20 research and clinical laboratories
by 7 different types of assays showed considerable intra- and
intermethod variation, These results demonstrate that folate
concentrations measured in one laboratory cannot be reliably
compared with those assayed in another laboratory without an
evaluation of interlaboratory differences. Hence, comparing
folate data for different study populations obtained by use of
different analytical methods is difficult. Excellent discussions ofmethod comparisons and possible sources of variability have
been previously presented by Shane et a!. [15] and Brown et al.
[16]. The reasons they cite for potential methodological differ-
ences are still valid but have become even more complex with
the emergence of new analytical technologies. Using method-
specific reference ranges in which “deficient” status results areclinically confirmed by other hematological markers is essential,
Developing Definitive Methods and Certified Reference Mate-
rials is urgently needed for serum and erythrocyte folate analy-sis. In 1994, at the Sixth Conference for Federally Funded
Human Nutrition Research Centers in Bethesda, MD, a strong
argument was presented for a collaborative development of
these methods and materials (Wayne Wolf, personal communi-
cation). Recent epidemiological evidence on the increasing
importance of folate underscores the need for analytical accu-
racy in its measurement. Improved standardization is needed
before researchers can collectively contribute to the evaluationof how well various folate cutoff values predict folate-prevent-
able conditions such as megaloblastic anemia, hyperhomocys-
teinemia, and neural tube defects. Joint efforts toward this goal
by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, CDC,
US Department of Agriculture, National Committee for Clin-
ical Laboratory Standards, Institute for Food Researchll.JK,NIBSC, and ICSH should be rigorously supported.
This work was supported in part by the National Center for
Environmental Health and by the National Center for Health
Statistics, CDC. We thank the following laboratorians for their
participation and support: Lynn Bailey, Jesse Gregory, and C.M.
Pfeiffer, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; Selwyn DeSouza, Bio-
Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA; Phillip Garry and Patricia
Stauber, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albu-
querque, NM; Ralph Green, Michael Miller, and Lynn Man-
teuffel, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH; Paul
Finglas, Institute of Food Research, Norwich, UK; Victor
Herbert and Spencer Shaw, Bronx VA Medical Center, Bronx,
NY; Sean O’Broin and Brian Kelleher, St. James’ Hospital,
Dublin, Ireland; Robert Jacob, USDA Human Nutrition Re-
search Center, The Presidio, San Francisco, CA, John Linden-
baum, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY;
Klaus Pietrzik, Department of Pathophysiology of Human
Nutrition, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany; Jacob Selhub,Marie Nadeau, and Irwin Rosenberg, USDA Human Nutrition
Research Center at Tufts University, Boston, MA; John Scott,
Zana Kelley, and Eileen Hallinan, Department of Biochemistry,
Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland; Nefertiti Sourial, St. Bar-
tholomew’s Hospital, London, UK; Tsunenobu Tamura and
Howerde Sauberlich, Nutrition Sciences Department, Univer-
sity of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Chris Thomas
and Regine Steegers-Theunissen, University Hospital St. Rad-
boud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Johan Ubbink, University
of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa; and David Wilson, Abbott
Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL.We also thank the staff of the NHANES Laboratory, CDC,
for their contributions in preparing and shipping these materials
to the participating laboratories.
References1. MRC Vitamin Study Research Group. Prevention of neural tube
defects: results of the Medical Research Council vitamin study.Lancet 1991;338:131-7.
2. Czeizel AE, Dudas I, Metneki J. Pregnancy outcomes in a random-ized controlled clinical trial of periconceptional multivitamin sup-plementation. Final report. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1994;255(3):
131-9.3. Green R, Jacobsen DW. Clinical implications of hyperhomocys-
teinemia. In: Bailey LB, ed. Folate in health and disease. NewYork: Marcel Dekker, 1995:99-102.
4. Selhub J, Jacques PF, Wilson PWF, Rush 0, Rosenberg IH. Vitaminstatus and intake as primary determinants of homocysteine in anelderly population. JAMA 1993:270:2693-8.
5. Sauberlich HE. Folate status of U.S. population groups. In: BaileyLB, ed. Folate in health and disease. New York: Marcel Dekker,
1995:171-94.6. College of American Pathologists. 1996 CAP Surveys. Northfield,
IL, November 1995:36.7. Van den Berg H, Finglas PM, Bates CJ. FLAIR intercomparisons on
serum and red cell folate. Int J Vit Res 1994:64:288-93.8. Instruction Manual, Bio-Rad QuantaPhase folate radioassay kit.
Hercules, CA: Bio-Rad Labs., 1987.9. Gunter EW, Lewis BG, Koncikowski SM. Laboratory methods used
for the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey(NHANES Ill), 1988-1994. Atlanta, GA: Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, 1996: in press.
10. Levine S. Analytical inaccuracy for folic acid with a popularcommercial vitamin B12/folate kit [Letter). Clin Chem 1993;39:2209-10.
11. Raiten DJ, Fisher KD, eds. Assessment of folate methodologyused in the Third National Health and Nutrition ExaminationSurvey (NHANES Ill, 1988-1994). J Nutr 1995;125:1371S-98S.
12. Baker Fl, Herbert V. Frank 0, Pasher I, Hutner SH, Wasserman LR,
Sobotka H. A microbiologicmethod for detectingfolicacid defi-ciency in man. Clin Chem 1959:5:275-82.
13. Wilson OH, Herrmann R, Hsu 5, Biegalski T, Sohn L, Forsythe C,et al. Ion capture assay for folate with the Abbott IMx#{174}Analyzer[Tech Brief]. Clin Chem 1995:41:1780-1.
14. Lindenbaum J, Allen RH. Clinical spectrum and diagnosis of folatedeficiency. In: Bailey LB, ed. Folate in health and disease. NewYork: Marcel Dekker, 1995:53.
15. Shane B, Tamura T, Stokstad ELR. Folate assay: a comparison ofradioassay and microbiological methods. Clin Chim Acta 1980;100:13-9.
16. Brown RD. Jun R, Hughes W, Watman R, Arnold B, Kronenberg H.Red cell folate assays: some answers to current problems withradioassay variability. Pathology 1990:22:82-7.