4.7 Article

Bridging the Polar and Hydrophobic Metabolome in Single-Run Untargeted Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Dried Blood Spot Metabolomics for Clinical Purposes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 4010-4021

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.1c00326

关键词

metabolomics; dried blood spots; LC-MS; inborn errors of metabolism

资金

  1. UiO:Life Science
  2. Research Council of Norway through its Centre of Excellence scheme [262613]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A single LC-MS method was developed for DBS metabolite analysis in clinical applications such as newborn screening, allowing for simultaneous analysis of a wide range of metabolites. The method utilized a diphenyl column, a multi-linear solvent gradient, and tailored MS settings to enhance sensitivity and reproducibility for diverse metabolites. The performance of the method was suitable for both untargeted and targeted approaches in clinically relevant experiments.
Dried blood spot (DBS) metabolite analysis is a central tool for the clinic, e.g., newborn screening. Instead of applying multiple analytical methods, a single liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) method was developed for metabolites spanning from highly polar glucose to hydrophobic long-chain acylcarnitines. For liquid chromatography, a diphenyl column and a multi-linear solvent gradient operated at elevated flow rates allowed for an even-spread resolution of diverse metabolites. Injecting moderate volumes of DBS organic extracts directly, in contrast to evaporation and reconstitution, provided substantial increases in analyte recovery. Q Exactive MS settings were also tailored for sensitivity increases, and the method allowed for analyte retention time and peak area repeatabilities of 0.1-0.4 and 2-10%, respectively, for a wide polarity range of metabolites (log P -4.4 to 8.8). The method's performance was suited for both untargeted analysis and targeted approaches evaluated in clinically relevant experiments.

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

4.7
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