4.7 Article

Identification of phase-II metabolites of flavonoids by liquid chromatography-ion-mobility spectrometry-mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 410, 期 2, 页码 471-482

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-017-0737-4

关键词

Flavonoids; Catechins; Phase-II metabolism; Metabolite identification; Ion-mobility spectrometry

资金

  1. ARIADME, a European FP7 ITN Community's Seventh Framework Program [607517]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flavonoids are a class of natural compounds with a broad range of potentially beneficial health properties. They are subjected to an extensive intestinal phase-II metabolism, i.e., conjugation to glucuronic acid, sulfate, and methyl groups. Flavonoids and their metabolites can interact with drug transporters and thus interfere with drug absorption, causing food-drug interactions. The site of metabolism plays a key role in the activity, but the identification of the various metabolites remains a challenge. Here, we developed an analytical method to identify the phase-II metabolites of structurally similar flavonoids. We used liquid chromatography-ion-mobility spectrometry-mass spectrometry (LC-IMS-MS) analysis to identify phase-II metabolites of flavonols, flavones, and catechins produced by HT29 cells. We showed that IMS could bring valuable structural information on the different positional isomers of the flavonols and flavones. The position of the glucuronide moiety had a strong influence on the collision cross section (CCS) of the metabolites, with only minor contribution of hydroxyl and methyl moieties. For the catechins, fragmentation data obtained from MS/MS analysis appeared more useful than IMS to determine the structure of the metabolites, mostly due to the high number of metabolites formed. Nevertheless, CCS information as a molecular fingerprint proved to be useful to identify peaks from complex mixtures. LC-IMS-MS thus appears as a valuable tool for the identification of phase-II metabolites of flavonoids.

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