4.7 Article

Stable isotope dilution microquantification of creatine metabolites in plasma, whole blood and dried blood spots for pharmacological studies in mouse models of creatine deficiency

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 436, 期 -, 页码 160-168

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2014.05.007

关键词

Creatine deficiency syndromes; Creatine metabolites; Mouse models; Stable isotope dilution; Tandem mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Heinz/Mead Johnson/Weston Endowment Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To develop an accurate stable isotope dilution assay for simultaneous quantification of creatine metabolites ornithine, arginine, creatine, creatinine, and guanidinoacetate in very small blood sample volumes to study creatine metabolism in mice. Methods: Liquid-chromatography (C18) tandem mass spectrometry with butylation was performed in positive ionization mode. Stable isotope dilution assay with external calibration was applied to three,different specimen types, plasma, whole blood and dried blood spot (DBS). Results: Analytical separation, sensitivity, accuracy, and linearity of the assay were adequate. The stable isotope dilution assay in plasma revealed no significant bias to gold standard methods for the respective analytes. Compared to plasma, we observed an overestimate of creatine and creatinine (2- to 5-fold and 1.2- to 2-fold, respectively) in whole-blood and DBS, and an underestimate of arginine (2.5-fold) in DBS. Validation of the assay in mouse models of creatine deficiency revealed plasma creatine metabolite pattern in good accordance with those observed in human GAMT and AGAT deficiency. Single dose intraperitoneal application of ornithine in wild-type mice lead to fast ornithine uptake (T-max <= 10 min) and elimination (T-1/2 = 24 min), and a decline of guanidinoacetate. Conclusion: The assay is fast and reliable to study creatine metabolism and pharmacokinetics in mouse models of creatine deficiency. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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