4.6 Article

Monitoring potential prostate cancer biomarkers in urine by capillary electrophoresis-tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1267, 期 -, 页码 162-169

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.07.021

关键词

Sarcosine; Urine; Multiple markers; Prostate cancer; Biomarker; Capillary electrophoresis-tandem mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
  3. NSERC CGSM Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been gradually losing its credibility over the last decade due to contradictory results in published literature and clinical practice. Recently, a group of potential PCa biomarkers in urine, particularly sarcosine, was found to increase significantly as the cancer progressed to metastasis. We report a simple, robust, and reproducible CE-ESI-MS/MS method for the determination of sarcosine and other representative potential biomarkers in pooled urine. The pooled urine was obtained from 20 healthy adult volunteers between the ages of 23-30 years old. A solid phase extraction (SPE) technique was optimized for maximum recovery of sarcosine. With no derivatization step, excellent resolution between sarcosine and its isomers (alpha-alanine and beta-alanine) was achieved. A separate non-SPE method was also developed for quantitative determination of highly concentrated urinary metabolites. CE separation was performed on a positively-charged, polyethyleneimine (PEI)-coated capillary using 0.4-2% formic acid in 50% methanol. Precision for intra- and inter-day standard addition calibration of sarcosine were found to be within 15%, whereas intra-day precisions for the rest of the metabolites varied from 0.03 to 13.4%. Acceptable intra-day and inter-day accuracies, ranging from 80 to 124%, were obtained for sarcosine and the other metabolites. (C) 2012 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

4.6
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