Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Urinary Total Proteins by Four Different Methods

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The total proteins in human urine have been compared by sulfosalicylic acid, sulfosalicylic acid with sodium sulphate and trichloroacetic acid methods with pyrogallol red molybdate method as there are no studies found quantifying imprecision and bias components. Fresh urine of 36 patients was analyzed by four methods. Imprecision and inaccuracy were determined by repeated analysis and method comparison studies using correlation plots, Bland and Altman, and Passing and Bablok regression analyses respectively. The coefficient of variation was 5.07 % for pyrogallol red molybdate; 6.84 % for sulfosalicylic acid; 3.97 % for sulfosalicylic acid with sodium sulphate and 5.93 % for trichloroacetic acid methods. Bland and Altman analysis showed a bias of 5.8, 1.7 and −5.4 for pyrogallol red molybdate versus sulfosalicylic acid, sulfosalicylic acid with sodium sulphate and trichloroacetic acid methods respectively. Passing and Bablok regression revealed a constant bias for pyrogallol red molybdate versus all turbidimetric methods but a proportional bias only with trichloroacetic acid method. Sulfosalicylic acid with sodium sulphate method is preferred to sulfosalicylic acid and trichloroacetic acid methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Henry RJ, Sobel CSM. Turbidimetric determination of proteins with sulphosalicylic and trichloroacetic acids. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1956;92:748–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pennock Ca, Passant LP, Bolton FG. Estimation of cerebrospinal fluid protein. J Clin Pathol. 1968;21(4):518–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Meulemans O. Determination of total protein in spinal fluid with sulphosalicylic acid and trichloroacetic acid. Clin Chim Acta. 1960;5:757–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shahangian S, Brown PI, Ash KO. Turbidimetric measurement of total urinary proteins: a revised method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1984;81:651–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Iwata J, Nishikaze O. New micro-turbidimetric method for determination of protein in cerebrospinal fluid and urine. Clin Chem. 1979;25:1317–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McIntosh JC. Application of dye-binding method to the determination of protein in urine and cerebrospinal fluid. Clin Chem. 1977;23:1939–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schleicher E, Wieland OH. Evaluation of the Bradford method for protein determination in body fluids. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1978;16:533–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Watanabe N, Kamei S, Ohkubo A, Yamanaka M, Ohsawa S, Makino K, et al. Urinary protein as measured with a pyrogallol red-molybdate complex, manually and in a Hitachi 726 automated analyzer. Clin Chem. 1986;32:1551–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Orsonneau JL, Douet P, Massoubre C, Lustenberger P, Bernard S. An improved pyrogallol red-molybdate method for determining total urinary protein. Clin Chem. 1989;35:2233–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chaturvedi S, Namita Jain AB. Evaluation of semi-quantitative methods for protein and suger estimation in urine. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2001;44(4):399–401.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson AM, Rohlfs EM, Silverman LM. Analysis of proteins. In: Burtis CAAE, editor. Tietz fundamentals of clinical chemistry. 5th ed. Philadelphia: W.B Saunders Company; 2001. p. 343–51.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson AM, Rohlfs EM, Silverman LM. Analysis of proteins. In: Burtis CA, editor. Tietz fundamentals of clinical chemistry. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B Saunders Company; 1999. p. 477–540.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Altman D, Bland J. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Stat [Internet] 1983; 32:307–17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2987937.

  14. Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measuremments from two different analytical methods: application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part 1. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1983;21:709–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dilena BA, Penberthy LA, Fraser CG. Six methods for determining urinary protein compared. Clin Chem. 1983;29:553–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Neter J, Wasserman W, Whitmore GA. Applied statistics. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon company; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the U.S. National Institutes of Health Fogarty-supported (D43 TW009078) SHARE INDIA and University of Pittsburgh team for conducting the research method courses which contributed to the conduct and publication of this research work. We also thank Dr. Sashidar B, professor/HOD and Dr. Tanuja K, Department of Biochemistry, Osmania University, Hyderabad for their valuable suggestions during the study period. Also, we would thank the senior technician Mr. Venkatesh K who had helped us in the sample analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry, Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences, SHARE INDIA, Ghanpur Village, Medchal Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    Padma Yalamati, Madhu Latha Karra & Aparna V. Bhongir

Authors
  1. Padma Yalamati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madhu Latha Karra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aparna V. Bhongir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Padma Yalamati.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yalamati, P., Karra, M.L. & Bhongir, A.V. Comparison of Urinary Total Proteins by Four Different Methods. Ind J Clin Biochem 31, 463–467 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-016-0551-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-016-0551-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation