4.5 Article

Mass spectrometric quantification of salivary metanephrines-A study in healthy subjects

期刊

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 49, 期 13-14, 页码 983-988

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.02.003

关键词

Saliva; Metanephrines; LC-MS/MS; Paraganglioma

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [ZIA HD008735-15] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Determination of metanephrine (MN), normetanephrine (NMN), and 3-methoxytyramine (3-MT) in saliva may offer potential diagnostic advantages in diagnosing pheochromocytoma. Methods: In this preliminary study, we determined metanephrine concentrations in saliva of healthy subjects and the relationship with simultaneously measured plasma metanephrines. We also studied the possible influence of pre-analytical conditions such as a collection device, awakening, posture, and eating on the salivary metanephrine levels. Results: Eleven healthy subjects were included. Fasting blood and saliva samples were collected in seated position and after 30 min of horizontal rest. Plasma and salivary MN, NMN, and 3-MT concentrations were determined using a high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometric technique (LC-MS/MS) with automated solid phase extraction sample preparation. Metanephrines were detectable in saliva from all participants both in seated and supine position. No significant correlations were observed between the MN, NMN, and 3-MT concentrations in saliva and plasma in seated or supine position. Furthermore, there was no difference between MN, NMN, and 3-MT samples collected with or without a collection device. Conclusion: Metanephrines can be detected in saliva with LC-MS/MS with sufficient sensitivity and precision. Our findings warrant evaluation of salivary metanephrine measurement as a novel laboratory tool in the work-up of patients suspected of having a pheochromocytoma. (C) 2016 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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