4.4 Article

Simultaneous profiling of multiple neurochemical pathways from a single cerebrospinal fluid sample using GC/MS/MS with electron capture detection

期刊

JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 43, 期 6, 页码 782-790

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jms.1376

关键词

GC/MS/MS; profiling; neurotransmitters; amino acids; cerebrospinal fluid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biogenic amines and amino acids are widely characterized in the pathways representing neurotransmission. Although several analytical methodologies have been used to detect specific target molecules in relevant fluids such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), multiple assays must be used to survey the primary pathways involved. This article describes the development of a GC/MS/MS method capable of analyzing up to 43 analytes (representing 20 amino acids and more than seven neurochemical pathways) from a single 50 mu I CSF sample. In this procedure, a CSF sample is first treated with acetonitrile to precipitate proteins. The dried sample is then derivatized with a mixture of 2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoro-l-propanol and pentafluoropropionic acetic anhydride to replace all active hydrogen atoms with fluorine-containing groups. Due to the concentration difference between amino acids and neurotransmitters, these two compound classes are analyzed in separate injections of the same derivatized extract. The total run time for each injection is approximately 15-20 min. An essential feature of the method is the use of argon as a reagent gas for electron capture chemical ionization (ECCI), as the use of the more traditional gas (methane) lacked sufficient durability to be considered for use with the present instrumentation. This article describes the development of this method including a detailed investigation of the chemical ionization conditions used. The resultant conditions allow for the profiling of biogenic amines (e.g. serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine) in the low picogram per milliliter range. Copyright (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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