4.7 Article

Determination of serum glucose by isotope dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry: a candidate reference measurement procedure

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 408, 期 26, 页码 7403-7411

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-016-9817-0

关键词

1-Phenyl-3-methyl-5-pyrazolone; Liquid chromatography-tandemmass spectrometry; Serum glucose

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81301488]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate and precise glucose measurements are requisite for ensuring appropriate diagnosis and management of diseases related to hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. It is necessary to have a higher order method to provide an accuracy base to which routine methods can be compared. We developed and evaluated a highly reliable measurement procedure based on isotope dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (ID LC-MS/MS) with a simple one-step derivatization. An appropriate amount of serum was accurately weighed and spiked with an isotope-labeled internal standard. After protein precipitation, the supernatant was reacted with 1-phenyl-3-methyl-5-pyrazolone for chemical structural transformation. The glucose derivatives were analyzed with LC-MS/MS in positive electrospray ionization mode. The within-run and total CVs ranged from 0.28 to 0.42 % and from 0.42 to 0.76 %, respectively, for a concentration range of 1.691 to 15.676 mmol/L. A regression comparison of the presented method to an existing RMP based on ID GC-MS showed agreement with no statistical difference (Y = 0.9985X-0.008; 95 % CI for the slope, 0.9966 to 1.001; 95 % CI for the intercept, -0.012 to 0.019). The structural analogs of glucose with a molecular mass of 180 were tested, and no significant interference effect was found. The limit of quantification was estimated to 0.8 ng glucose in absolute amount. This method is accurate, simple, and can serve as a candidate reference measurement procedure (RMP) in the establishment of a serum glucose reference system.

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

4.7
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