ArticlePloS one2020
Enzymatic methods may underestimate the total serum bile acid concentration.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
- Dyslipidemia in Anorexia Nervosa Is Associated with Decreased Plasma Tauroursodeoxycholic Acid and a Specific Fatty Acid Pattern.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Comparison of colorimetric, fluorometric, and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry assays for acetyl-coenzyme A.Analytical biochemistry · 2024Article
- A simple and reliable bile acid assay in human serum by LC-MS/MS.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Metabolomics for personalized medicine: the input of analytical chemistry from biomarker discovery to point-of-care tests.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enzymatic assays based on bacterial 3α-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase are the method of choice for quantification of total bile acids (BAs) in serum. Although non-specific, it is generally considered precise and robust. The aim of this study was to investigate how changes in the BA spectrum might affect the reliability of the method. We measured standard solutions of twenty-three human and murine BAs using a commercial enzymatic assay and compared the measured vs. expected concentrations. Additionally, total BA concentrations in rat and human cholestatic samples with an abnormal BA spectrum were measured using an enzymatic assay, and a more specific LC-MS/MS method. We observed a great variability in the response of individual BAs in the enzymatic assay. Relative signal intensities ranged from 100% in glycocholic acid (reference) to only 20% in α-muricholic acid. The enzymatic assay markedly underestimated the BA concentrations in both human and rat cholestatic sera when compared to the LC-MS/MS assay. Our study indicated that the performance of an enzymatic assay largely depends on the BA spectrum, and the total concentration of BAs can be markedly underestimated. Samples with an atypical BA spectrum (viz. in rodents) should preferably be measured by other methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.