4.7 Article

Profiling of pentose phosphate pathway intermediates in blood spots by tandem mass spectrometry: Application to transaldolase deficiency

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 49, Issue 8, Pages 1375-1380

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/49.8.1375

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Recently, several patients with abnormal polyol profiles in body fluids have been reported, but the origins of these polyols are unknown. We hypothesized that they are derived from sugar phosphate intermediates of the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP), and we developed a semiquantitative method for profiling of pentose phosphate pathway intermediates. Methods: Sugar phosphates in blood spots were simultaneously analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry using an ion-pair-loaded C-18 HPLC column. The tandem mass spectrometer was operated in the multiple-reaction monitoring mode. Enzymatically prepared D-[C-13(6)]glucose 6-phosphate was used as internal standard. The method was used to study sugar phosphates abnormalities in a patient affected with a deficiency of transaldolase (TALDO1; EC 2.2.1.2). Results: In control blood spots, dihydroxyacetone phosphate, pentulose 5-phosphates, pentose 5-phosphates, hexose 6-phosphates, and sedoheptulose 7-phosphate were detected. Detection limits ranged from similar to100 to similar to500 nmol/L. Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate and erythrose 4-phosphate were undetectable. Intra- and interassay imprecision (CVs) were 10-17% and 12-21%, respectively. In blood from the TALDO1-deficient patient, sedoheptulose 7-phosphate was increased. Conclusions: The new method allows investigation of patients in whom a defect in the PPP is suspected. Measurements of sugar phosphate intermediates of the PPP may provide new insights into metabolic defects underlying the accumulating polyols. (C) 2003 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

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