4.3 Article

Electrophoretic Determination of Trimethylamine (TMA) in Biological Samples as a Novel Potential Biomarker of Cardiovascular Diseases Methodological Approach

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312318

关键词

cardiovascular diseases in athletes; biomarkers; determination of trimethylamine (TMA); capillary electrophoresis (CE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents the development of a simple and cost-effective capillary electrophoresis-based method for the determination of TMA in biological samples, with potential applications as a novel biomarker of cardiovascular diseases.
In competitive athletes, the differential diagnosis between nonpathological changes in cardiac morphology associated with training (commonly referred to as athlete's heart) and certain cardiac diseases with the potential for sudden death is an important and not uncommon clinical problem. The use of noninvasive, fast, and cheap analytical techniques can help in making diagnostic differentiation and planning subsequent clinical strategies. Recent studies have demonstrated the role of gut microbiota and their metabolites in the onset and the development of cardiovascular diseases. Trimethylamine (TMA), a gut bacteria metabolite consisting of carnitine and choline, has recently emerged as a potentially toxic molecule to the circulatory system. The present work aims to develop a simple and cost-effective capillary electrophoresis-based method for the determination of TMA in biological samples. Analytical characteristics of the proposed method were evaluated through the study of its linearity (R-2 > 0.9950) and the limit of detection and quantification (LOD = 1.2 mu g/mL; LOQ = 3.6 mu g/mL). The method shows great potential in high-throughput screening applications for TMA analysis in biological samples as a novel potential biomarker of cardiovascular diseases. The proposed electrophoretic method for the determination of TMA in biological samples from patients with cardiac disease is now in progress.

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

4.3
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