4.4 Article

Mass defect profiles of biological matrices and the general applicability of mass defect filtering for metabolite detection

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 22, 期 13, 页码 2082-2088

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.3585

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent examples have demonstrated that the high-resolution liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS)-based mass defect filtering (MDF) technique was effective in selectively detecting drug metabolites regardless of their molecular weights or fragmentation patterns. The main objective of the current study was to evaluate the general applicability of MDF for drug metabolite detection in typical biological matrices. Mass defect profiles of commonly used biological matrices including plasma, urine, bile, and feces were obtained using an LTQ FT mass spectrometer and were compared with those of 115 commonly prescribed drugs. The mass defect profiles were presented as two-dimensional Y-X plots with the determined mass defects of components on the y-axis versus the corresponding m/z values on the x-axis. The mass defect profiles of the matrices appeared to be similar for each type of matrix across species, yet marked differences were apparent between matrices of a given species. The mass defect profiles of components in plasma, bile, and feces showed significant separation from most of the 115 drugs. The mass defect profiles of urine did not show such clean separation from that of the 115 drugs. The results suggest that MDF has a broad applicability for selective detection of drug metabolites in plasma, bile and feces although the selectivity for detecting urinary drug matabolites is not as good as in the other matrices. In addition, the mass defect profiles of the biological matrices allow for prediction of the effectiveness of MDF for certain applications, and for designing specific MDF windows for selective detection of drug metabolites. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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