4.7 Article

Assessment of 1H NMR-based metabolomics analysis for normalization of urinary metals against creatinine

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 464, 期 -, 页码 37-43

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2016.10.037

关键词

NMR; Urinary metabolite; Creatinine quantification; Jaffe reaction method; Bland-Altman plot; Metal analysis

资金

  1. OHS Futures Research Funding Program, Government of Alberta

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Proton nuclear magnetic resonance (H-1 NMR, or NMR) spectroscopy and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) are commonly used for metabolomics and metal analysis in urine samples. However, creatinine quantification by NMR for the purpose of normalization of urinary metals has not been validated. We assessed the validity of using NMR analysis for creatinine quantification in human urine samples in order to allow normalization of urinary metal concentrations. Methods: NMR and ICP-MS techniques were used to measure metabolite and metal concentrations in urine samples from 10 healthy subjects. For metabolite analysis, two magnetic field strengths (600 and 700 MHz) were utilized. In addition, creatinine concentrations were determined by using the Jaffe method. Results: Creatinine levels were strongly correlated (R-2 = 0.99) between NMR and Jaffe methods. The NMR spectra were deconvoluted with a target database containing 151 metabolites that are present in urine. A total of 50 metabolites showed good correlation (R-2 = 0.7-1.0) at 600 and 700 MHz. Metal concentrations determined after NMR-measured creatinine normalization were comparable to previous reports. Conclusions: NMR analysis provided robust urinary creatinine quantification, and was sufficient for normalization of urinary metal concentrations. We found that NMR-measured creatinine-normalized urinary metal concentrations in our control subjects were similar to general population levels in Canada and the United Kingdom. (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

4.7
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