4.5 Article

Development and evaluation of a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method for rapid, accurate quantitation of malondialdehyde in human plasma

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2016.07.013

关键词

Malondialdehyde; Plasma; 3-Nitrophenylhydrazine; Derivatization; LC/MRM-MS; Isotope-labeling

资金

  1. Genome British Columbia
  2. Genome Canada as part of the Genomics Innovation Network (GIN)
  3. Metabolomics Innovation Centre (TMIC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Malondialdhyde (MDA) is a commonly used marker of lipid peroxidation in oxidative stress. To provide a sensitive analytical method that is compatible with high throughput, we developed a multiple reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry (MRM-MS) approach using 3-nitrophenylhydrazine chemical derivatization, isotope-labeling, and liquid chromatography (LC) with electrospray ionization (ESI)-tandem mass spectrometry assay to accurately quantify MDA in human plasma. A stable isotope-labeled internal standard was used to compensate for ESI matrix effects. The assay is linear (R-2=0.9999) over a 20,000-fold concentration range with a lower limit of quantitation of 30 fmol (on-column). Intra- and inter-run coefficients of variation (CVs) were <2% and similar to 10% respectively. The derivative was stable for >36 h at 5 degrees C. Standards spiked into plasma had recoveries of 92-98%. When compared to a common LC-UV method, the LC-MS method found near-identical MDA concentrations. A pilot project to quantify MDA in patient plasma samples (n = 26) in a study of major depressive disorder with winter-type seasonal pattern (MDD-s) confirmed known associations between MDA concentrations and obesity (p < 0.02). The LC-MS method provides high sensitivity and high reproducibility for quantifying MDA in human plasma. The simple sample preparation and rapid analysis time (5x faster than LC-UV) offers high throughput for large-scale clinical applications. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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