Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter September 25, 2019

Repeatability and reproducibility of lipoprotein particle profile measurements in plasma samples by ultracentrifugation

  • Sandra Monsonis-Centelles , Huub C.J. Hoefsloot , Søren B. Engelsen , Age K. Smilde and Mads V. Lind ORCID logo EMAIL logo



Characterization of lipoprotein particle profiles (LPPs) (including main classes and subclasses) by means of ultracentrifugation (UC) is highly requested given its clinical potential. However, rapid methods are required to replace the very labor-intensive UC method and one solution is to calibrate rapid nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based prediction models, but the reliability of the UC-response method required for the NMR calibration has been largely overlooked.


This study provides a comprehensive repeatability and reproducibility study of various UC-based lipid measurements (cholesterol, triglycerides [TGs], free cholesterol, phospholipids, apolipoprotein [apo]A1 and apoB) in different main classes and subclasses of 25 duplicated fresh plasma samples and of 42 quality control (QC) frozen pooled plasma samples of healthy individuals.


Cholesterol, apoA1 and apoB measurements were very repeatable in all classes (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 92.93%–99.54%). Free cholesterol and phospholipid concentrations in main classes and subclasses and TG concentrations in high-density lipoproteins (HDL), HDL subclasses and low-density lipoproteins (LDL) subclasses, showed worse repeatability (ICC: 19.21%–99.08%) attributable to low concentrations, variability introduced during UC and assay limitations. On frozen QC samples, the reproducibility of cholesterol, apoA1 and apoB concentrations was found to be better than for the free cholesterol, phospholipids and TGs concentrations.


This study shows that for LPPs measurements near or below the limit of detection (LOD) in some of the subclasses, as well as the use of frozen samples, results in worsened repeatability and reproducibility. Furthermore, we show that the analytical assay coupled to UC for free cholesterol and phospholipids have different repeatability and reproducibility. All of this needs to be taken into account when calibrating future NMR-based models.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: This study was funded by the Danish Strategic Research Council/Innovation Foundation Denmark (COUNTERSTRIKE, grant number 4105-00015B).

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


1. Superko HR. Advanced lipoprotein testing and subfractionation are clinically useful. Circulation 2009;119:2383–94.10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.809582Search in Google Scholar

2. Gordon T, Castelli WP, Hjortland MC, Kannel WB, Dawber TR. High density lipoprotein as a protective factor against coronary heart disease. The Framingham Study. Am J Med 1977;62:707–14.10.1016/0002-9343(77)90874-9Search in Google Scholar

3. Fredrickson DS, Levy RI, Lees RS. Fat transport in lipoproteins – an integrated approach to mechanisms and disorders. N Engl J Med 1967;276:215–25.10.1056/NEJM196701262760406Search in Google Scholar

4. Han S, Flattery AM, McLaren D, Raubertas R, Lee SH, Mendoza V, et al. Comparison of lipoprotein separation and lipid analysis methodologies for human and cynomolgus monkey plasma samples. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 2012;5:75–83.10.1007/s12265-011-9340-9Search in Google Scholar

5. Smith SJ, Cooper GR, Myers GL, Sampson EJ. Biological variability in concentrations of serum lipids: sources of variation among results from published studies and composite predicted values. Clin Chem 1993;39:1012–22.10.1093/clinchem/39.6.1012Search in Google Scholar

6. Marcovina SM, Gaur VP, Albers JJ. Biological variability of cholesterol, triglyceride, low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, lipoprotein(a), and apolipoproteins A-I and B. Clin Chem 1994;40:574–8.10.1093/clinchem/40.4.574Search in Google Scholar

7. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem 1972;18:499–502.10.1093/clinchem/18.6.499Search in Google Scholar

8. Schectman G, Patsches M, Sasse EA. Variability in cholesterol measurements: comparison of calculated and direct LDL cholesterol determinations. Clin Chem 1996;42:732–7.10.1093/clinchem/42.5.732Search in Google Scholar

9. Fukuyama N, Homma K, Wakana N, Kudo K, Suyama A, Ohazama H, et al. Validation of the Friedewald equation for evaluation of plasma LDL-cholesterol. J Clin Biochem Nutr 2008;43:1–5.10.3164/jcbn.2008036Search in Google Scholar

10. Meeusen JW, Snozek CL, Baumann NA, Jaffe AS, Saenger AK. Reliability of calculated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Am J Cardiol 2015;116:538–40.10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.05.013Search in Google Scholar

11. Martin SS, Blaha MJ, Elshazly MB, Toth PP, Kwiterovich PO, Blumenthal RS, et al. Comparison of a novel method vs. the Friedewald equation for estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from the standard lipid profile. J Am Med Assoc 2013;310:2061–8.10.1001/jama.2013.280532Search in Google Scholar

12. Okazaki M, Usui S, Ishigami M, Sakai N, Nakamura T, Matsuzawa Y, et al. Identification of unique lipoprotein subclasses for visceral obesity by component analysis of cholesterol profile in high-performance liquid chromatography. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2005;25:578–84.10.1161/01.ATV.0000155017.60171.88Search in Google Scholar

13. Baumstark MW, Kreutz W, Berg A, Frey I, Keul J. Structure of human low-density lipoprotein subfractions determined by X-ray small-angle scattering. Biochim Biophys Acta – Protein Struct Mol Enzymol 1990;1037:48–57.10.1016/0167-4838(90)90100-TSearch in Google Scholar

14. Aru V, Lam C, Khakimov B, Hoefsloot HC, Zwanenburg G, Lind MV, et al. Quantification of lipoprotein profiles by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and multivariate data analysis. TrAC – Trends Anal Chem 2017;94:210–9.10.1016/j.trac.2017.07.009Search in Google Scholar

15. Mihaleva VV, Van Schalkwijk DB, De Graaf AA, Van Duynhoven J, Van Dorsten FA, Vervoort J, et al. A systematic approach to obtain validated partial least square models for predicting lipoprotein subclasses from serum nmr spectra. Anal Chem 2014;86:543–50.10.1021/ac402571zSearch in Google Scholar

16. Jeyarajah EJ, Cromwell WC, Otvos JD. Lipoprotein particle analysis by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Clin Lab Med 2006;26:847–70.10.1016/j.cll.2006.07.006Search in Google Scholar

17. Petersen M, Dyrby M, Toubro S, Engelsen SB, Nørgaard L, Pedersen HT, et al. Quantification of lipoprotein subclasses by proton nuclear magnetic resonance-based partial least-squares regression models. Clin Chem 2005;51:1457–61.10.1373/clinchem.2004.046748Search in Google Scholar

18. Bathen TF, Krane J, Engan T, Bjerve KS, Axelson D. Quantification of plasma lipids and apolipoproteins by use of proton NMR spectroscopy, multivariate and neural network analysis. NMR Biomed 2000;13:271–88.10.1002/1099-1492(200008)13:5<271::AID-NBM646>3.0.CO;2-7Search in Google Scholar

19. Ala-Korpela M, Hiltunen Y, Bell JD. Quantification of biomedical NMR data using artificial neural network analysis: lipoprotein lipid profiles from 1H NMR data of human plasma. NMR Biomed 1995;8:235–44.10.1002/nbm.1940080603Search in Google Scholar

20. Dona AC, Jimenez B, Schafer H, Humpfer E, Spraul M, Lewis MR, et al. Precision high-throughput proton NMR spectroscopy of human urine, serum, and plasma for large-scale metabolic phenotyping. Anal Chem 2014;86:9887–94.10.1021/ac5025039Search in Google Scholar

21. Monsonis Centelles S, Hoefsloot HC, Khakimov B, Ebrahimi P, Lind MV, Kristensen M, et al. Toward reliable lipoprotein particle predictions from NMR spectra of human blood: an interlaboratory ring test. Anal Chem 2017;89:8004–12.10.1021/acs.analchem.7b01329Search in Google Scholar

22. Pagani F, Panteghini M. Significance of various parameters derived from biological variability for lipid and lipoprotein analyses. Clin Biochem 1993;26:415–20.10.1016/0009-9120(93)90119-QSearch in Google Scholar

23. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996;1:30–46.10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30Search in Google Scholar

24. Munroe WH, Phillips ML, Schumaker VN. Excessive centrifugal fields damage high density lipoprotein. J Lipid Res 2015;56:1172–81.10.1194/jlr.M058735Search in Google Scholar

25. Castile JD, Taylor KM. Factors affecting the size distribution of liposomes produced by freeze-thaw extrusion. Int J Pharm 1999;188:87–95.10.1016/S0378-5173(99)00207-0Search in Google Scholar

26. Zivkovic AM, Wiest MM, Nguyen UT, Davis R, Watkins SM,German JB. Effects of sample handling and storage on quantitative lipid analysis in human serum. Metabolomics 2009;5:507–16.10.1007/s11306-009-0174-2Search in Google Scholar

27. Ala-Korpela M, Korhonen A, Keisala J, Hörkkö S, Korpi P, Ingman LP, et al. 1H NMR-based absolute quantitation of human lipoproteins and their lipid contents directly from plasma. J Lipid Res 1994;35:2292–304.10.1016/S0022-2275(20)39935-1Search in Google Scholar

28. Nakamura M, Kayamori Y, Iso H, Kitamura A, Kiyama M, Koyama I, et al. LDL cholesterol performance of beta quantification reference measurement procedure. Clin Chim Acta 2014;20:288–93.10.1016/j.cca.2014.02.018Search in Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (

Received: 2019-07-18
Accepted: 2019-09-05
Published Online: 2019-09-25
Published in Print: 2019-12-18

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 3.2.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow