4.4 Article

NMR and interval PLS as reliable methods for determination of cholesterol in rodent lipoprotein fractions

期刊

METABOLOMICS
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 129-136

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11306-009-0181-3

关键词

Lipoproteins; NMR; iPLS; Apple; Targeted metabolomics

资金

  1. European Commission (ISAFRUIT) [FP6-FOOD-CT-2006-016279]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Risk of cardiovascular disease is related to cholesterol distribution in different lipoprotein fractions. Lipoproteins in rodent model studies can only reliably be measured by time- and plasma-consuming fractionation. An alternative method to measure cholesterol distribution in the lipoprotein fractions in rat plasma is presented in this paper. Plasma from two rat studies (n = 68) was used in determining the lipoprotein profile by an established ultracentrifugation method and proton nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra of replicate samples was obtained. From the ultracentrifugation reference data and the NMR spectra, an interval partial least-square (iPLS) regression model to predict the amount of cholesterol in the different lipoprotein fractions was developed. The relative errors of the prediction models were between 12 and 33% and had correlation coefficients (r) between 0.96 and 0.84. The models were tested with an independent test set giving prediction errors between 19 and 46% and r between 0.96 and 0.76. Prediction of High, Low and Very Low Density Lipoprotein (HDL, LDL and VLDL) and total cholesterol was conducted in a study where rats had been supplemented with two doses of air-dried apple-powder. No significant difference in LDL, VLDL and total cholesterol was observed between the groups. The high apple-powder (20%) group had significantly lower HDL cholesterol (11%, P = 0.0452) than the control group. It is concluded that the iPLS approach yielded excellent regression models and thus univocal established chemometric analysis of NMR spectra of rat plasma as a strong and efficient way to quantify lipoprotein fractions in rat studies.

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

4.4
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