Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sensitive and specific two-site immunoradiometric assays for human insulin, proinsulin, 65-66 split and 32-33 split proinsulins

Open access
Sobey, W J, Beer, S F, Carrington, C A, Clark, P M S, Frank, B H, Gray, I P, Luzio, S D, Owens, D R, Schneider, A E, Siddle, K, Temple, R C, Hales, C N·1989·Biochemical Journal

Abstract

Monoclonal antibody-based two-site immunoradiometric assays are described for human insulin, proinsulin, 65-66 split and 32-33 split proinsulin. The detection limits of the assays lie in the range 0.8-2.5 pM. The assays for 65-66 and 32-33 split proinsulins do not distinguish between these substances and their respective C-terminal di-desamino derivatives. The assay of 65-66 split proinsulin does not cross-react with insulin, proinsulin or 32-33 split proinsulin. This material was undetectable (less than 1.0 pM) in plasma taken after an overnight fast in eight normal male subjects and the maximum individual concentration reached in plasma taken during an oral glucose tolerance test of these subjects was 3.8 pM. The proinsulin assay cross-reacted 66% with 65-66 split proinsulin but not with insulin or 32-33 split proinsulin. The 32-33 split proinsulin assay cross-reacted 84 and 60% with proinsulin and 65-66 split proinsulin respectively. The insulin assay cross-reacted 5.3, 62 and 5.0% with intact proinsulin, 65-66 split proinsulin and 32-33 split proinsulin respectively. The very low concentration of 65-66 split proinsulin meant that this derivative did not interfere significantly with the specificity of the assays of proinsulin and insulin. The concentration of 32-33 split proinsulin could be calculated by subtracting the cross-reactivity of the measured proinsulin. The mean concentrations of insulin, proinsulin and 32-33 split proinsulin in eight young male subjects in the fasting state were (pM +/- S.E.M.) 20 +/- 0.3, 2.3 +/- 0.3 and 2.1 +/- 0.7 and at the maximum reached during an oral glucose tolerance test, 150 +/- 26, 9.9 +/- 1.4 and 19.7 +/- 6.0 respectively.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1042/bj2600535

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 336

Metadata

Authors
Sobey, W. J., Beer, S. F., Carrington, C. A., Clark, P. M. S., Frank, B. H., Gray, I. P., Luzio, S. D., Owens, D. R., Schneider, A. E., Siddle, K., Temple, R. C., & Hales, C. N.
Venue
Biochemical Journal
Published
1989-06-01
Volume
260
Issue
2
Pages
535-541
ISSN
  • 0264-6021 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-8728
OpenAlex
W2199004952
Cited by
336
References
1
FWCI
14.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sensitive and specific two-site immunoradiometric assays for human insulin, proinsulin, 65-66 split and 32-33 split proinsulins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1042/bj2600535
The paper
Sobey, W. J., Beer, S. F., Carrington, C. A., Clark, P. M. S., Frank, B. H., Gray, I. P., Luzio, S. D., Owens, D. R., Schneider, A. E., Siddle, K., Temple, R. C., & Hales, C. N. (1989). Sensitive and specific two-site immunoradiometric assays for human insulin, proinsulin, 65-66 split and 32-33 split proinsulins. Biochemical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj2600535

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.