4.6 Article

Quantification of free and total desmosine and isodesmosine in human urine by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry: A comparison of the surrogate-analyte and the surrogate-matrix approach for quantitation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1326, 期 -, 页码 13-19

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.12.035

关键词

COPD; Desmosine; Internal standard; Surrogate analyte; Surrogate matrix; Validation

资金

  1. University of Groningen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In spite of the data suggesting the potential of urinary desmosine (DES) and isodesmosine (IDS) as biomarkers for elevated lung elastic fiber turnover, further validation in large-scale studies of COPD populations, as well as the analysis of longitudinal samples is required. Validated analytical methods that allow the accurate and precise quantification of DES and IDS in human urine are mandatory in order to properly evaluate the outcome of such clinical studies. In this work, we present the development and full validation of two methods that allow DES and IDS measurement in human urine, one for the free and one for the total (free + peptide-bound) forms. To this end we compared the two principle approaches that are used for the absolute quantification of endogenous compounds in biological samples, analysis against calibrators containing authentic analyte in surrogate matrix or containing surrogate analyte in authentic matrix. The validated methods were employed for the analysis of a small set of samples including healthy never-smokers, healthy current-smokers and COPD patients. This is the first time that the analysis of urinary free DES, free IDS, total DES, and total IDS has been fully validated and that the surrogate analyte approach has been evaluated for their quantification in biological samples. Results indicate that the presented methods have the necessary quality and level of validation to assess the potential of urinary DES and IDS levels as biomarkers for the progression of COPD and the effect of therapeutic interventions. (C) 2014 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