Table 1.
A relative comparison of published C1q assays with our assay
| Referenced | [9] | [6] | [11] | [12] | [3] | [10] | [13] | Oursa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assay type | EID | RID | RID | RID | ELISA | ELISA | ELISA | ELISA |
| Avg. Healthy C1q (µg/ml) | 276±25 | N/A | 129±29 | N/A | N/A | 127±37 | 56±15 | 113±40 |
| Avg. SLE C1q (µg/ml) | N/A | 145±52 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 38±13 | N/A |
| Throughput and up-scaling | Low | Low | Low | Low | High | High | High | High |
| Cost per sample | High | High | High | High | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Precision | Low | Low | Low | Low | Med | Med | Med | Med |
| Time (days) | 1 | 2–3 | 2–3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1–3 |
| Sample amount used | Med | Med | High | Med | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Reproducible | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | No | No | No | Yes |
a)
Table compares seven published C1q assays with our assay. The assays from [6, 9, 11, 12] use immunodiffusion which tends to have low throughput, resolution, and precision. The three ELISA assays [3, 10, 13] were not reproducible with our described components (refer to section 3.2, figure 3, and figure 4). Our assay is best suited for large numbers of sample, short assay times, and reproducibility.