1 / 13

Serum and Urine Sample Handling Methods: A Comparison of Stanford and California State Protocols

This study investigates the handling of serum and urine samples from Stanford and California State groups. For serum, Stanford Group A samples were immediately frozen, while Group B samples were allowed to clot at room temperature for one hour before being centrifuged, then stored at room temperature for up to seven days. Urine samples were processed at room temperature over five days. The study highlights significant findings through ANOVA and Tukey HSD analyses of biomarker densities, revealing variations in sample integrity across handling methods.

chynna
Download Presentation

Serum and Urine Sample Handling Methods: A Comparison of Stanford and California State Protocols

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Serum sample handling Stanford Group A Samples Immediately freeze Stanford Blood Stanford Serum Samples freeze Stanford Group B Samples Blood samples were allowed to clot at R.T for 1 hour, and centrifuged to get sera Kept @ R.T for 7 days CA State Blood CA State Serum Samples CA State Samples Kept @ R.T for variable length of time up to 7 days freeze

  2. 30 Total # of feature: 746 20 Density 10 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ANOVA P value

  3. Stanford Group B vs. A CA State vs. Stanford Group A CA State vs. Stanford Group B 10 8 6 Density 4 2 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Tukey HSD P value between sub groups

  4. Distribution of DCV of each feature Distribution of CV of each feature 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0 0.0 -2.0 CA State – Stanford Group A CA State – Stanford Group B Stanford Group A Stanford Group B Stanford Group B – A CA State

  5. MAX Stanford Group A Stanford Group B Molecular Weight CA State MIN

  6. Stanford Group A Stanford Group B Stanford Group A Stanford Group B CA State CA State 600 500 400 300 200 100 ALB – MW 66224 APOC1 – MW 6629 000 600 CO3 – MW 8125 TF – MW 78284 500 400 300 200 100 000

  7. Urine sample handling 5 X Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 1 Process 2 R.T. Process Pool 5 individual urine samples Split into 6 identical samples 3 R.T. Process 4 R.T. Process 5 R.T. Process 6 Receive FEDEX Transit Process

  8. Total # of feature: 100737 1.5 1.0 Density 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ANOVA P value

  9. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Day 2 vs. Day 1 Day 3 vs. Day 1 Day 4 vs. Day 1 Day 5 vs. Day 1 FEDEX vs. Day 1 Density 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Tukey HSD P value between sub groups

  10. Distribution of DCV of each feature Distribution of CV of each feature 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 -1.0 0.0 -2.0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 FEDEX Day 2 - Day 1 Day 3 - Day 1 Day 4 - Day 1 Day 5 - Day 1 FEDEX - Day 1

  11. Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 FEDEX

  12. Case study of THP peptides • THP 982.59 VLNLGPITR • THP 1047.48 SGSVIDQSRV • THP 1211.66 DQSRVLNLGPI • THP 1225.69 SRVLNLGPITR • THP 1324.76 IDQSRVLNLGPI • THP 1423.83 VIDQSRVLNLGPI • THP 1468.82 DQSRVLNLGPITR • THP 1510.87 SVIDQSRVLNLGPI • THP 1567.91 GSVIDQSRVLNLGPI • THP 1581.91 IDQSRVLNLGPITR • THP 1654.91 SGSVIDQSRVLNLGPI • THP 1680.98 VIDQSRVLNLGPITR • THP 1755.96 SGSVIDQSRVLNLGPIT • THP 1768.01 SVIDQSRVLNLGPITR • THP 1912.07 SGSVIDQSRVLNLGPITR • THP 2040.16 SGSVIDQSRVLNLGPITRK

  13. 5. 9. 13. 1. 6. 10. 14. 2. 7. 11. 15. 3. 8. 12. 16. 4.

More Related