4.7 Article

UHPLC-MS/MS analysis of cAMP and cGMP in rat plasma as potential biomarkers of Yin-Yang disharmony in traditional Chinese medicine

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL ANALYSIS
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 458-464

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpha.2020.09.001

关键词

CAMP; cGMP; Plasma; UHPLC-MS/MS; Yin-Yang disharmony

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [J1103606]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new method for determining cAMP and cGMP in rat plasma was developed in this study, taking into account their stability ex vivo, and was used to evaluate the regulatory effects of Chinese herbal medicine on the levels of cAMP and cGMP in the body.
Cyclic 3',5'-adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and cyclic 3',5'-guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) are considered as potential biomarkers for Yin-Yang disharmony in traditional Chinese medicine. However, phosphodiesterase-mediated ex vivo degradation of these molecules in biological samples may result in their underestimation. In the present study, a ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) method was developed for determination of cAMP and cGMP in rat plasma, with special consideration of their stability ex vivo. Following precipitation of proteins from plasma samples with 0.4 M perchloric acid, the analytes were chromatographed on a Shimadzu Shim-pack-XR-ODS II column with 2.5 mM ammonium acetate and methanol in gradient mode. The MS/MS detection was performed using multiple reaction monitoring in the positive electrospray ionization mode. The lower limit of quantification was 0.27 ng/mL for cAMP and 0.37 ng/mL for cGMP. The method was used to determine the plasma cAMP and cGMP levels in normal and Yin deficiency diabetic rats treated with or without Rehmannia glutinosa. The developed method may be useful for evaluating the regulatory effects of Chinese herbal medicine on the levels of cAMP and cGMP in the body. (C) 2020 Xi'an Jiaotong University. Production and hosting 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