4.4 Article

Methods for efficient analysis of tocopherols, tocotrienols and their metabolites in animal samples with HPLC-EC

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD AND DRUG ANALYSIS
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 318-329

出版社

FOOD & DRUG ADMINSTRATION
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2017.07.012

关键词

Mice; Tissue levels; Tocopherols; Tocotrienols; Metabolites

资金

  1. NIH [CA122474, CA133021]
  2. John L. Colaizzi Chair Endowment Fund
  3. National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support grant [CA72720]
  4. National Institute of Environmental Health Center grant [ES05022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tocopherols and tocotrienols, collectively known as vitamin E, have received a great deal of attention because of their interesting biological activities. In the present study, we reexamined and improved previous methods of sample preparation and the conditions of high-performance liquid chromatography for more accurate quantification of tocopherols, tocotrienols and their major chain-degradation metabolites. For the analysis of serum tocopherols/tocotrienols, we reconfirmed our method of mixing serum with ethanol followed by hexane extraction. For the analysis of tissue samples, we improved our methods by extracting tocopherols/tocotrienols directly from tissue homogenate with hexane. For the analysis of total amounts (conjugated and unconjugated forms) of side-chain degradation metabolites, the samples need to be deconjugated by incubating with beta-glucuronidase and sulfatase; serum samples can be directly used for the incubation, whereas for tissue homogenates a pre-deproteination step is needed. The present methods are sensitive, convenient and are suitable for the determination of different forms of vitamin E and their metabolites in animal and human studies. Results from the analysis of serum, liver, kidney, lung and urine samples from mice that had been treated with mixtures of tocotrienols and tocopherols are presented as examples. Copyright (C) 2017, Food and Drug Administration, Taiwan. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.

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