Different methods for particle diameter determination of low density and high density lipoproteins-Comparison and evaluation



Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title



Predominance of small dense Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) is associated with a two to threefold increase in risk for Coronary Heart Disease (CVD). Small, dense HDL (High Density Lipoprotein) particles protect small dense LDL from oxidative stress. Technological advancements have introduced an array of techniques for measuring diameters of LDL and HDL as well as estimating overall particle heterogeneity. However, there is lack of comparative studies between these techniques, and, hence, no conclusive evidence to establish the merits of one method relative to others. The primary purpose of this study was to compare Nondenaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (NDGGE) and Dynamic Laser Light Scattering (DLLS) methods in determining LDL and HDL particle diameter. Our comparison entailed: 1) Evaluating the two methods in terms of their reproducibility 2) Correlating the two methods(in future studies method selection would be driven by time and cost considerations if the two methods correlate), and 3) Evaluating the two methods in terms of their ability to identify bi-modal samples. A secondary purpose of this research was to investigate the effect of refrigerated plasma storage on particle diameter. Reproducibility was measured as Coefficient of Variance (CV). Within and between runs, CV for LDL and HDL for NDGGE were <6% and <15%, respectively and for DLLS, CV within runs were <3% and <5.5%, respectively. No correlation was observed between LDL diameter from the two methods. NDGGE showed two bands for 157 HDL samples of which only 24 samples showed bimodal peaks in DLLS. In order to study the effect of storage, three sample sets of LDL and two sample sets of HDL were used. NDGGE showed a significant difference between mean diameter of fresh and stored LDL and HDL sample for all sets, whereas DLLS showed a significant difference in only one LDL sample set and none for HDL sample sets. We conclude that DLLS may be a better method for measuring LDL diameter because NDGGE overestimated LDL diameter. However, NDGGE was able to resolve subpopulation better in an HDL sample than DLLS. Thus, NDGGE may be a better choice for measuring HDL diameter than DLLS.