4.4 Article

An improved LC-MS/MS method for the detection of classic and low excretor glutaric acidemia type 1

期刊

JOURNAL OF INHERITED METABOLIC DISEASE
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 431-435

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10545-011-9405-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glutaric acidemia type I (GA1) is associated with elevated glutarylcarnitine (C5DC), typically measured as its butylester by acylcarnitine profile analysis using tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) and the precursor-product ion pair of m/z 388-85. This method neither distinguishes between C5DC and its isomer 3-hydroxydecanoylcarnitine (C10-OH) nor reliably detects the low-excretor variant of GA1, leading to both false-positive and false-negative results when testing for GA1. To overcome these limitations, we developed an LC-MS/MS method that discriminates C5DC from C10-OH by the use of precursor-product ion pairs specific for butylated C5DC (m/z 388-115) and underivatized C10-OH (m/z 332-85). The C5DC method was validated over the linearity range of 0.025-20 mu M with a lower limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.025 mu M. Excellent precision and accuracy were also observed. We tested plasma samples from 10 patients with confirmed GA1 (including 3 with the low-excretor variant), 21 patients with mild elevations of C5DC or C10-OH by routine acylcarnitine analysis for which GA1 ultimately was excluded, and 29 normal controls. By using the m/z 388-115 ion pair, all cases of GA1, including the low-excretor variant, were reliably distinguished from normal controls. By using the m/z 388-85 pair, patients with ambiguous elevations of C5DC or C10-OH demonstrated clearly elevated levels of C10-OH (m/z 332-85) but normal C5DC (m/z 388-115), confirming that the apparent elevation of C5DC is due to interference by C10-OH. Our method results in excellent detection of GA1, including the low-excretor variant, and also provides a means to discriminate C5DC and C10-OH in follow-up testing and routine acylcarnitine studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据