4.5 Article

Complexity and pitfalls of mass spectrometry-based targeted metabolomics in brain research

Journal

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 406, Issue 2, Pages 124-131

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2010.07.002

Keywords

Metabolomics; Mass spectrometry; Quantitative analysis; Brain homogenization

Funding

  1. European Commission [LSHM-CT-2006-036534]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Current quantitative metabolomic research in brain tissue is challenged by several analytical issues. To compare data of metabolite pattern, ratios of individual metabolite concentrations and composed classifiers characterizing a distinct state, standardized workup conditions, and extraction medium are crucial. Differences in physicochemical properties of individual compounds and compound classes such as polarity determine extraction yields and, thus, ratios of compounds with varying properties. Also, variations in suppressive effects related to coextracted matrix components affect standards or references and their concentration-dependent responses. The selection of a common tissue extraction protocol is an ill-posed problem because it can be regarded as a multiple objective decision depending on factors such as sample handling practicability, measurement precision, control of matrix effects, and relevance of the chemical assay. This study systematically evaluates the impact of extraction solvents and the impact of the complex brain tissue on measured metabolite levels, taking into account ionization efficiency as well as challenges encountered in the trace-level quantification of the analytes in brain matrices. In comparison with previous studies that relied on nontargeted platforms, consequently emphasizing the global behavior of the metabolomic fingerprint, here we focus on several series of metabolites spanning over extensive polarity, concentration, and molecular mass ranges. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available