4.6 Article

Metabolomic Method: UPLC-q-ToF Polar and Non-Polar Metabolites in the Healthy Rat Cerebellum Using an In-Vial Dual Extraction

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122883

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Butterfield Trust
  2. Libyan Cultural Bureau London

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Unbiased metabolomic analysis of biological samples is a powerful and increasingly commonly utilised tool, especially for the analysis of bio-fluids to identify candidate biomarkers. To date however only a small number of metabolomic studies have been applied to studying the metabolite composition of tissue samples, this is due, in part to a number of technical challenges including scarcity of material and difficulty in extracting metabolites. The aim of this study was to develop a method for maximising the biological information obtained from small tissue samples by optimising sample preparation, LC-MS analysis and metabolite identification. Here we describe an in-vial dual extraction (IVDE) method, with reversed phase and hydrophilic liquid interaction chromatography (HILIC) which reproducibly measured over 4,000 metabolite features from as little as 3mg of brain tissue. The aqueous phase was analysed in positive and negative modes following HILIC separation in which 2,838 metabolite features were consistently measured including amino acids, sugars and purine bases. The non-aqueous phase was also analysed in positive and negative modes following reversed phase separation gradients respectively from which 1,183 metabolite features were consistently measured representing metabolites such as phosphatidylcholines, sphingolipids and triacylglycerides. The described metabolomics method includes a database for 200 metabolites, retention time, mass and relative intensity, and presents the basal metabolite composition for brain tissue in the healthy rat cerebellum.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available