Previous Article | Next Article 
Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, March 2000, p. 197-199, Vol. 7, No. 2
1071-412X/00/$04.00+0
Lipid Removal from Human Serum Samples
Arnold R.
Castro,*
William E.
Morrill, and
Victoria
Pope
Division of AIDS, STD, and TB Laboratory Research, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Received 13 August 1999/Returned for modification 4 November
1999/Accepted 29 December 1999
 |
ABSTRACT |
The efficacy of lipid removal from human serum samples obtained by
using Cleanascite HC, a commercially available product, was compared to
that obtained by the standard chloroform method. Separate samples of 21 frozen, banked human serum samples used in the preparation of samples
for proficiency testing were treated with either Cleanascite HC or
chloroform. The lipid content was measured before and after treatment.
The total percentages of lipid removed ranged from 61 to 70% with
Cleanascite HC and from 60 to 62% with chloroform. The advantage of
Cleanascite HC over chloroform is based on the simplicity of the
procedure with Cleanascite HC without the environmental concerns
inherent in the use of chloroform. In 15 serum samples known to contain
antibodies to treponemal and nontreponemal syphilis antigens,
Cleanascite HC bound some immunoglobulin, but with only minimal loss of
reactivity in the serologic tests for syphilis. Cleanascite HC is
therefore an acceptable alternative to chloroform for lipid reduction
in human serum samples.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Human sera used in the preparation
of syphilis serology reference controls or samples for proficiency
testing generally have high lipid contents. The presence of excess
lipids in these sera is objectionable because of the unaesthetic
appearance, difficulty in rehydration after lyophilization, and
possible interference in the nontreponemal tests for syphilis.
Traditionally, chloroform has been the preferred method for
delipidization of human or animal sera used in the manufacturing of
diagnostic or control reagents. Although chloroform effectively removes
lipids, its use is not advisable because of environmental concerns.
Chloroform is classified as a carcinogen and requires both monitoring
of personnel exposure time and hazardous waste disposal. Chloroform use
is also inconvenient due to the amount of labor and time required for
emulsification and separation. Cleanascite HC consists of moderately
hydrophobic silica which has been wetted or "activated" so that it
will disperse in aqueous media. This permits productive interaction
with lipophilic biomolecules, presumably by the release of water from
the surface. The surface structure has also been modified by a
proprietary process in order to minimize nonspecific interactions with
proteins (4). Cleanascite HC is supplied as a finely
distributed, solid-phase suspension (33% centrifuged volume/total
volume) in saline. When human sera are treated with Cleanascite HC,
lipids are removed at a ratio similar to or better than that obtained
with chloroform, with only a minimal loss of reactivity of the antisera
due to immunoglobulin G (IgG) or IgM binding.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate Cleanascite HC treatment as
an alternative to chloroform treatment for the removal of lipids from
frozen, banked sera. Fresh serum samples from syphilis patients were
not included in this initial study. As part of the evaluation, we
determined the decreases in the amounts of total lipid and protein and
any effect on the reduction of reactivity in the treponemal and
nontreponemal tests for syphilis.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Serum sample treatment.
Twenty-one separate human serum
samples which had been stored in bulk at
20°C for 1 to 18 years
were treated with either Cleanascite HC (Affinity Technology, Inc.,
Fairfield, N.J.) or chloroform. Fifteen of the serum samples contained
both treponemal and nontreponemal antibodies. The remaining six serum
samples were nonreactive in all tests for syphilis. We added 1 ml of
Cleanascite HC to each of 21 glass test tubes (12 by 75 mm) and
centrifuged them at 1,000 × g for 20 min. The
supernatant was decanted, and 2 ml of the serum to be treated was added
to the Cleanascite HC pellet. These tubes were vortexed to suspend the
pellet and were then incubated at 2 to 8°C overnight with constant
gentle agitation at approximately 27 rpm on a tabletop rocker platform.
Following incubation, the samples were centrifuged at 1,000 × g for 45 min. The treated sera were decanted into another set
of correspondingly labeled glass test tubes (12 by 75 mm). The sera
were then filtered through 0.45-µm-pore-size filter membranes (Gelman
Sciences, Ann Arbor, Mich.) to remove any broken polymer particles that
might be in the suspension.
For chloroform extraction, 1 ml of each serum sample was added to a
second set of glass test tubes. One milliliter of chloroform was then
added to each tube and the tube was vigorously vortexed until a thick
emulsion was obtained. The tubes were then centrifuged at
1,000 × g for 30 min. The supernatant was removed from
the lipid-chloroform layer by decanting it into correspondingly labeled microcentrifuge tubes (39 by 10 mm; Sarsted, Newton, N.C.), which were
then centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 45 min. The
supernatant was carefully decanted into corresponding glass test tubes
(12 by 75 mm) (10).
Sample testing.
Total lipid determination was made for all
the serum samples, including the pretreatment sample, by two different
methods. Total cholesterol was determined enzymatically by a
modification of the method of Allain et al. (1).
Triglycerides were measured by using a quantitative enzymatic means of
determination of the glycerol level, as modified by McGowan et al.
(8). Total serum lipid levels (expressed as milligrams per
deciliter) were calculated by using the formula TL = 2.27 TC + TG + 0.623, where TL is the total lipid level, TC is the total
cholesterol level, and TG is the total triglyceride level
(9).
The protein concentration was determined by the method of Bradford
(
2) (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Richmond, Calif.). Total
IgG and
IgM for each of the 15 syphilis-reactive serum samples
was determined
by radial immunodiffusion (
3,
6,
7) (The
Binding Site,
Birmingham, United
Kingdom).
Serologic testing for syphilis was done with each set of the 21 samples
treated with Cleanascite HC and chloroform. The tests
performed were
(i) the rapid plasma reagin circle card test (RPR),
(ii) the Venereal
Disease Research Laboratory test (VDRL), (iii)
the unheated serum
reagin test (USR), and (iv) the toluidine red
unheated serum test
(TRUST). All tests were performed by standard
methods (
5).
The treponemal tests done were (i) the fluorescent
treponemal
antibody-absorption double staining test (FTA-ABS DS)
(
5),
(ii) the microhemagglutination assay for
Treponema pallidum (MHA-TP) (
5), and (iii) the Captia Syphilis-G and Syphilis-M
enzyme immunoassay (EIA; Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur, Chaska, MN)
for
IgG and IgM antitreponemal antibodies,
respectively.
 |
RESULTS |
Cleanascite HC removed, on average, a higher percentage of lipid
than the chloroform method did and was more efficient at lipid removal
(70.48 versus 62.26%) when it was used with sera that had been frozen
for 2 years or less. For sera that had been stored for longer periods
(average, 18 years), the efficiencies of lipid removal were 67.49% by
the Cleanascite HC method and 62.19% by the chloroform method (Table
1).
There was greater protein loss with samples treated with Cleanascite HC
(12.93 to 19.21%) compared to the loss with samples treated with
chloroform (3.07 to 9.42%), possibly due to the removal of lipoprotein
by Cleanascite HC (Table 1).
The 15 samples that were reactive in the serologic test for syphilis
(STS) were tested for total IgG and IgM concentrations. Samples treated
with Cleanascite HC demonstrated a reduction in IgG content of 20.56 to
22.27%, while samples treated with chloroform showed a reduction in
IgG content of 3.38 to 5.79%. Serum samples treated with Cleanascite
HC showed a quantitative IgM reduction of 13.43 to 21.57%, whereas
samples treated with chloroform showed a quantitative IgM reduction of
4.80 to 6.20% (Table 1).
To determine the effect of Cleanascite HC in reducing specific antibody
content, we tested 15 of the reactive serum samples using the
treponemal and nontreponemal tests for syphilis. In the nontreponemal
tests (RPR, TRUST, VDRL, and USR), both the treated and untreated sera
were tested in parallel and the endpoint titers were determined (Table
2). By RPR, an endpoint titer of 1 dilution less was found for four samples treated with Cleanascite HC
and three samples treated with chloroform. By USR, five serum samples
treated with Cleanascite HC and three serum samples treated with
chloroform had 1 doubling dilution reductions in titer. By TRUST, seven
samples treated with Cleanascite HC and two samples treated with
chloroform showed 1 doubling dilution reductions in antibody titers. By
VDRL, five samples treated with chloroform and four samples treated
with Cleanascite HC demonstrated twofold antibody titer losses. No
serum sample became nonreactive by any test when it was subjected to
either treatment.
The same 15 reactive and minimally reactive serum samples were tested
qualitatively by FTA-ABS, MHA-TP, and the EIAs for IgG and IgM
antibodies (Table 3). By FTA-ABS and
MHA-TP, no change in reactivity was found for any of the samples
treated with chloroform or Cleanascite HC, although five samples
treated with chloroform showed a slight decrease in fluorescence
intensity by FTA-ABS. By the EIAs, the antibody index is used to
determine whether the sample is reactive, equivocal, or nonreactive. By
the EIA for IgG antibody against T. pallidum antigen, the
result was changed from reactive to equivocal for one sample treated
with Cleanascite HC but for none of the samples treated with
chloroform. By the EIA for IgM antibody against T. pallidum
antigen, no result was changed by Cleanascite HC treatment, but the
result for one sample treated with chloroform changed from reactive to
equivocal and that for another sample changed from equivocal to
nonreactive.
 |
DISCUSSION |
For all 21 samples tested, lipid removal was more effective with
Cleanascite HC (61.62 to 70.48%) than with chloroform (60.24 to
62.26%). The length of time that the serum is stored may affect treatment with Cleanascite HC, since lipid removal was more efficient (70.48%) for sera stored for 2 years or less. Of the 21 samples tested, 8 had been stored at
20°C for 1 to 2 years, while the rest
had been stored for 6 to 18 years. The effect of storing treated
samples at
20°C is not known but is being evaluated.
The total protein content of the samples tested indicated some loss of
protein after treatment with Cleanascite HC, which may be due to the
removal of lipoproteins. The loss of total immunoglobulin is meaningful
if the specific antibody content of the samples is reduced to a point
which affects the desired antibody titer. The antigens for all the
nontreponemal tests (VDRL, RPR, USR, and TRUST) are based on the VDRL
antigen, which is an alcoholic solution that contains cardiolipin,
lecithin, and cholesterol. The antigen flocculates when it is combined
with nontreponemal antibodies in serum. Excessive lipids in the serum
can interfere with the interpretation of nontreponemal test results,
especially in sera stored for long periods, which have the tendency to
develop lipoidal clumps. We obtained a more accurate assessment of the effect of lipid removal on antibody reduction in these tests by comparing endpoint titers before and after treatment. Some sera had a
1-doubling-dilution loss of antibody titer after treatment with either
Cleanascite HC or chloroform, but none of the STS-reactive samples
became nonreactive after treatment and none of the STS-nonreactive samples became reactive after treatment.
By the EIAs, the antibody index, which is used to determine whether a
serum sample is reactive, equivocal, or nonreactive, decreased after
treatment with Cleanascite HC, demonstrating some loss of specific
immunoglobulin content. This was more evident in the test for IgG, with
a change in results from reactive to equivocal for one serum sample. By
contrast, in the test for IgM chloroform treatment appeared to have
more of an effect, with two of the serum samples changing from
equivocal to nonreactive after being treated. Since the EIAs are
considered qualitative rather than quantitative, decreases in antibody
index are not considered important when they do not affect qualitative results.
Some decreases in the intensities of reactivities by MHA-TP and FTA-ABS
occurred for the serum samples treated with chloroform but not for
those treated with Cleanascite HC. This would suggest that Cleanascite
HC would be preferred over chloroform for the treatment of sera with a
1+ to 2+ agglutination or fluorescence since chloroform treatment might
remove the reactivity.
Because filtration to reduce lipid agglomerates in serum is inefficient
and organic solvents such as chloroform are considered toxic and create
hazardous waste-disposal problems, we sought an alternative method for
lipid removal that was both safe and effective. Our studies indicate
that Cleanascite HC meets these criteria for removal of excess lipids
from reference control sera or samples to be used for proficiency
testing. It is important that serum which is not cloudy be used to
prepare these samples, since cloudiness causes some end users to think
that the samples are contaminated. No serum became completely
nonreactive as a result of the treatment, and any decreases in
nontreponemal antibody titer were usually within a 1 doubling dilution,
which we do not consider a significant decrease since this is within
the allowable margin of error for the tests.
We conclude that the use of Cleanascite HC for reducing excessive
amounts of lipids in frozen, banked sera is a good alternative to
chloroform treatment when preparing serum sample panels for use as
controls, as reference standards, or for proficiency testing.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Division of
AIDS, STD, and TB Laboratory Research, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Mail Stop D-13, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone:
(404) 639-2874. Fax: (404) 639-3976. E-mail: ajc5{at}cdc.gov.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Allain, C. A.,
L. S. Poon,
C. S. G. Chan,
W. Richmond, and P. C. Fu.
1974.
Enzymatic determination of total serum cholesterol.
Clin. Chem.
20:470[Abstract].
|
| 2.
|
Bradford, M. M.
1976.
A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding.
Anal. Biochem.
72:248-254[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Fahey, J. L., and E. M. McKelvey.
1965.
Quantitative determination of serum immunoglobulins in antibody-agar plates.
J. Immunol.
94:84-90.
|
| 4.
|
Kuruc, M., and J. Krupey.
1992.
Solid-phase adsorption of lipids and particulates.
Biomed. Products
12:30.
|
| 5.
|
Larsen, S. A.,
V. Pope,
R. E. Johnson, and E. J. Kennedy, Jr. (ed.).
1998.
A manual of tests for syphilis, p. 157-222.
, 246-288. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
|
| 6.
|
Mancini, G., and A. O. Carbonara.
1965.
Immunochemical quantitation of antigens by single radial immunodifusion.
Immunochemistry
2:235-254[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Mancini, G., and J. P. Vaerman.
1963.
Protides of the biological fluids, p. 370-373.
Amsterdam Elsevier Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
|
| 8.
|
McGowan, M. W.,
J. D. Artiss,
D. R. Strandbergh, and B. Zak.
1983.
A peroxidase-coupled method for the colorimetric determination of serum triglycerides.
Clin. Chem.
29:538[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Phillips, D. L.,
J. L. Pirkle,
V. W. Burse,
J. T. Bernet,
L. O. Henderson, and L. L. Needham.
1989.
Chlorinated hydrocarbon levels in human serum: effects of fasting and feeding.
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
18:495-500[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Updyke, E. L., and E. Conroy.
1956.
Clarification of serum for storage in liquid or lyophilized state.
J. Bacteriol.
72:277-278[Free Full Text].
|
Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, March 2000, p. 197-199, Vol. 7, No. 2
1071-412X/00/$04.00+0