4.6 Article

Evaluation of Dried Blood Spot Sampling for Clinical Metabolomics: Effects of Different Papers and Sample Storage Stability

Journal

METABOLITES
Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/metabo9110277

Keywords

postgenome medicine; mass spectrometry; dried blood spot; metabolomics; metabolite profiling

Funding

  1. Program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Proteomic and Metabolomic Profile of Healthy Human)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The dried blood spot (DBS) sampling has a lot of advantages in comparison with the standard venous blood collecting, such as small collection volume, painless and easy sample collection with minimal training required, stable and transportable at ambient temperatures, etc. The aim of this study was to determine the comparability of four different types of DBS sampling (HemaSpot (TM)-HF Blood Collection Device, Whatman (R) 903 Protein Saver Snap Apart Card, card ImmunoHealth (TM), and glass fiber strip ImmunoHealth (TM)) for analysis of the global metabolites profile. All the samples were collected from the same person at the same time and stored at room temperature for four weeks in order to exclude all possible deviations deriving from biological variances and to evaluate sample storage stability. Metabolome profiling by direct injection of a deproteinized capillary blood DBS sample into an electrospray ion source of a hybrid quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer was used. Differences in the metabolomics profile were found between the different DBS collection materials, especially for ImmunoHealth (TM) card and ImmunoHealth (TM) glass fiber strip. However, our results indicate that the analytical performance of all tested DBS sampling materials showed consistent results overall detected metabolites and no dramatic changes between them in the metabolic composition during the storage time.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available