4.8 Article

Optimization and Evaluation Strategy of Esophageal Tissue Preparation Protocols for Metabolomics by LC-MS

Journal

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 88, Issue 7, Pages 3459-3464

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b04709

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (Key Program) [21335007]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2014AA021101]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sample preparation is a critical step in tissue metabolomics. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic strategy for the screening of tissue preparation protocols is highly desirable. In this study, we developed an Optimization and Evaluation Strategy based on LC-MS to screen for a high extractive efficiency and reproducible esophageal tissue preparation protocol for different types of endogenous metabolites (amino acids, carnitines, cholines, etc.), with a special focus on low-level metabolites. In this strategy, we first selected a large number of target metabolites based on literature survey, previous work in our lab, and known metabolic pathways. For these target metabolites, we tested different solvent extraction methods (biphasic solvent extraction, two-step [TS], stepwise [SW], all-in one [AO]; single-phase solvent extraction, SP) and esophageal tissue disruption methods (homogenized wet tissue [HW], ground wet tissue [GW], and ground dry tissue [GD]). A protocol involving stepwise addition of solvents and a homogenized wet tissue protocol (SWHW) was superior to the others. Finally, we evaluated the stability of endogenous metabolites in esophageal tissues and the sensitivity, reproducibility, and recovery of the optimal protocol. The results proved that the SWHW protocol was robust and adequate for bioanalysis. This strategy will provide important guidance for the standardized and scientific investigation of tissue metabolomics.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available