Review
Methods for urinary testosterone analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4347(95)00062-NGet rights and content

Abstract

Urinary testosterone analysis requires a multistep procedure to achieve a good degree of sensitivity and specificity in the dosage. Hydrolysis, extraction, purification and quantification are usually performed in sequence, and several options can be chosen for each of them. After introductory remarks on the applications of urinary testosterone measurement and a short description of the metabolic pathway of the hormone, an overview of the techniques most commonly used in each step is presented. Advantages and disadvantages of each of them are outlined, and a procedure for urinary testosterone analysis is suggested. The procedure consists of: enzymatic hydrolysis with Helix pomatia juice, followed by solid-phase extraction of hydrolyzed urine by a C18 cartridge coupled with an NH2 cartridge and high-performance liquid chromatography cleanup of the extract. Then, quantification can be achieved by gas chromatography or radioimmunoassay.

References (85)

  • R.L. Rosenfield et al.

    Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.

    (1974)
  • G. Secreto et al.

    Eur. J. Cancer

    (1994)
  • L. Dehennin et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem. Molec. Biol.

    (1993)
  • M.R. Waterman et al.

    Mol. Cell. Endocrinol.

    (1985)
  • K.L. Boulton et al.

    Metabolism

    (1992)
  • P. Muti et al.

    Steroids

    (1988)
  • J.M. Kjeld et al.

    Clin. Chim. Acta

    (1978)
  • C.H.L. Shackleton

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1986)
  • E. Venturelli et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1992)
  • E. Vanluchene et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem.

    (1982)
  • G. Messeri et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem.

    (1984)
  • R. Massé et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1989)
  • S. Burstein et al.

    J. Biol. Chem.

    (1958)
  • M. Axelson et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1981)
  • H.L. Bradlow

    Steroids

    (1968)
  • K.D.R. Setchell et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem.

    (1976)
  • W.J.J. Leunissen et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1978)
  • J. Sjövall et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem.

    (1979)
  • T. Fotsis et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem.

    (1987)
  • C.H.L. Shackleton et al.

    Clin. Chim. Acta

    (1980)
  • L.A. Van Ginkel

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1991)
  • T. Fotsis et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem.

    (1981)
  • M. Schöneshöfer et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1979)
  • E.C. Nice et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1978)
  • P. Krien et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1982)
  • G.J. Southan et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem. Molec. Biol.

    (1992)
  • D.J. Liberato et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem.

    (1987)
  • R. Bagnati et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1991)
  • C.H.L. Shackleton et al.

    Clin. Chim. Acta

    (1976)
  • G. Moneti et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem.

    (1987)
  • T. Furuta et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1990)
  • H. Breuer et al.

    J. Steroid Biochem.

    (1975)
  • M. Donike et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1980)
  • C.D. Kochakian

    Steroids

    (1990)
  • J.F. Sabot et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1985)
  • L.A. van Ginkel et al.

    J. Chromatogr.

    (1992)
  • C.H.L. Shackleton et al.

    Steroids

    (1990)
  • T.K. Dhar et al.

    J. Immunol. Methods

    (1992)
  • C.D. West et al.

    J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.

    (1973)
  • C. Faiman et al.

    J. Clin. Endocrinol.

    (1971)
  • R. Grattarola

    J. Natl. Cancer Inst.

    (1976)
  • G. Secreto et al.

    Cancer Res.

    (1983)
  • Cited by (47)

    • Measuring urinary cortisol and testosterone levels in male Barbary macaques: A comparison of EIA and LC–MS

      2019, General and Comparative Endocrinology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Then, we correlated the LC–MS cortisol and testosterone measurements to their respective EIA measurements from unprocessed urine to determine whether they would closely match, or whether deconjugation steps might be necessary prior to using EIA in order to improve results (Al-Dujaili, 2006). Thus, if these results did not correlate significantly, we then performed a deconjugation step (Venturelli et al., 1995; Ziegler et al., 2000) to see if the correlation improved and by this assessed the general suitability of the immunoassays used (c.f. Al-Dujaili, 2006). The deconjugation step performed (hydrolysis or solvolysis) was chosen based on the pattern of conjugation.

    • Determination of finasteride and its metabolite in urine by dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction combined with field-enhanced sample stacking and sweeping

      2018, Journal of Chromatography A
      Citation Excerpt :

      The FESS-sweeping method was compared to the conventional MEKC method for an injection condition of 6 s at 0.5 psi. The enrichment factor of the analyte was calculated using the formula that describes that the peak area of the analyte with FESS-sweeping is divided into the peak area of the analyte with MEKC and multiplied by the dilution factor [30]. The calculated enrichment factors for finasteride and M3 were 362 and 480, respectively.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text