4.4 Article

Sulfate metabolites as alternative markers for the detection of 4-chlorometandienone misuse in doping control

期刊

DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 983-993

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dta.2101

关键词

4-chlorometandienone; anabolic steroids; doping analysis; LC-MS/MS; metabolism; sulfate metabolites

资金

  1. World Anti-Doping Agency WADA [12A21RV]
  2. Ministerio de Economia y Competividad (Gobierno de Espana) [DEP2012-35612]
  3. Generalitat de Catalunya (Consell Catala de l'Esport) [DIUE 2014 SGR 692]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sulfate metabolites have been described as long-term metabolites for some anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS). 4-chlorometandienone (4Cl-MTD) is one of the most frequently detected AAS in sports drug testing and it is commonly detected by monitoring metabolites excreted free or conjugated with glucuronic acid. Sulfation reactions of 4Cl-MTD have not been studied. The aim of this work was to evaluate the sulfate fraction of 4Cl-MTD metabolism by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to establish potential long-term metabolites valuable for doping control purposes. 4Cl-MTD was administered to two healthy male volunteers and urine samples were collected up to 8 days after administration. A theoretical selected reaction monitoring (SRM) method working in negative mode was developed. Ion transitions were based on ionization and fragmentation behaviour of sulfate metabolites as well as specific neutral losses (NL of 15Da and NL of 36Da) of compounds with related chemical structure. Six sulfate metabolites were detected after the analysis of excretion study samples. Three of the identified metabolites were characterized by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS). Results showed that five out of the six identified sulfate metabolites were detected in urine up to the last collected samples from both excretion studies. Copyright (C) 2016 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