4.7 Article

High resolution mass spectrometry newborn screening applications for quantitative analysis of amino acids and acylcarnitines from dried blood spots

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 1120, 期 -, 页码 85-96

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2020.04.067

关键词

Metabolomics; Newborn screening; High resolution mass spectrometry; Dried blood spot; Metabolic disorders; Amino acids and acylcarnitines

资金

  1. Research Participation Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  2. U.S. Department of Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Amino acid and acylcarnitine first-tier newborn screening typically employs derivatized or non-derivatized sample preparation methods followed by FIA coupled to triple quadrupole (TQ) MS/MS. The low resolving power of TQ instruments results in difficulties distinguishing nominal isobaric metabolites, especially those with identical quantifying product ions such as malonylcarnitine (C3DC) and 4-hydroxybutylcarnitine (C4OH). Twenty-eight amino acids and acylcarnitines extracted from dried blood spots (DBS) were analyzed by direct injection (DI)-HRMS on a Q-Exactive Plus across available mass resolving powers in SIM, in PRM at 17,000 full width at half maximum (FWHM), and a developed SIM/PRM hybrid MS method. Most notably, quantitation of C3DC and C4OH was successful by HRMS in non-derivatized samples, thus, potentially eliminating sample derivatization requirements. Quantitation differed between SIM and PRM acquired data for several metabolites, and it was determined these quantitative differences were due to collision energy differences or kinetic isotope effects between the unlabeled metabolites and the corresponding labeled isotopologue internal standards. Overall quantitative data acquired by HRMS were similar to data acquired on TQ MS/MS platform. A proof-of-concept hybrid DI-HRMS and SIM/PRM/FullScan method was developed demonstrating the ability to hybridize targeted newborn screening with metabolomic screening. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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