4.7 Article

One- vs two-phase extraction: re-evaluation of sample preparation procedures for untargeted lipidomics in plasma samples

Journal

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 410, Issue 23, Pages 5859-5870

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-018-1200-x

Keywords

Lipids; Untargeted lipidomics; Extraction; LC-MS; Multivariate analysis

Funding

  1. Science, Technology and Innovation Department-COLCIENCIAS from Colombia [6171-71294025]
  2. University Medical Center Groningen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lipidomics is a rapidly developing field in modern biomedical research. While LC-MS systems are able to detect most of the known lipid classes in a biological matrix, there is no single technique able to extract all of them simultaneously. In comparison with two-phase extractions, one-phase extraction systems are of particular interest, since they decrease the complexity of the experimental procedure. By using an untargeted lipidomics approach, we explored the differences/similarities between the most commonly used two-phase extraction systems (Folch, Bligh and Dyer, and MTBE) and one of the more recently introduced one-phase extraction systems for lipid analysis based on the MMC solvent mixture (MeOH/MTBE/CHCl3). The four extraction methods were evaluated and thoroughly compared against a pooled extract that qualitatively and quantitatively represents the average of the combined extractions. Our results show that the lipid profile obtained with the MMC system displayed the highest similarity to the pooled extract, indicating that it was most representative of the lipidome in the original sample. Furthermore, it showed better extraction efficiencies for moderate and highly apolar lipid species in comparison with the Folch, Bligh and Dyer, and MTBE extraction systems. Finally, the technical simplicity of theMMC procedure makes this solvent system highly suitable for automated, untargeted lipidomics analysis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available