The question I now have is this: If the Pico-Tag workstation is no longer
going to be available, what alternatives are there for convenient hydrolysis
methods, and how do they compare to the PicoTag system? I recall some
discussion a long while back on microwave units, but what about other methods
of hydrolysis? In reviewing the past ABRF AAA studies, two addressed
hydrolysis: in 1989, the ABRF study showed that hydrolysis was a highly
variable step in amino acid analysis, but it did not focus on the relative
merits of different hydrolysis methods. The 1994 study confirmed that good
hydrolysis is critical in obtaining accurate AA results, regardless of the
derivatization method or instrument used. Of course, hydrolysis has been an
internal part of the AAA Research Committee studies all along, but as far as
I can tell, it has never been singled out for comparative evaluation.
Might we consider a study on different hydrolysis systems? Is this even a
do-able study? Do other ABRF'rs have an interest in this issue? Or is
everyone happy with their current system, with no need to replace the
instrument or method they use? How many out there do high-throughput AAA
where instrument viability, performance degradation, and future availability
of new equipment are causes for concern?
My overriding query: In the shrinking world of AAA technology, as is evident
by the loss of instrumentation options for this analytical method and the
lack of new technical developments, is it time to re-evaluate what options
are left to those of us who continue to do AAA? I know it isn't the most
glamorous analytical method anymore, but it is quite an important quality
assurance test for biological products.
I'd like to hear your views (and I know I will!).
Thanks
Nadine Ritter
Abbott Diagnostics Division
Nadine.Ritter@add.ssw.abbott.com