4.7 Article

Development and validation of a mass spectrometric detection method of peginesatide in dried blood spots for sports drug testing

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 403, 期 9, 页码 2715-2724

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-012-6043-2

关键词

Peginesatide; Omontys; Hematide; Doping; Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents; Q Exactive

资金

  1. Fonds of the Chemical Industry (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)
  2. Antidoping Switzerland (Berne, Switzerland)
  3. Federal Ministry of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Germany (Berlin, Germany)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As recently reported, dried blood spot (DBS) analysis is an advantageous technique for doping control purposes due to the minimal invasive sample collection, the simple and economic manner, as well as the low susceptibility to manipulation. Its general applicability to the sports drug testing arena has been shown for analytes of various substance classes, all of which comprise exclusively low molecular mass compounds. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the technique of DBS analysis is applicable also to (pegylated) peptides with relevance for doping controls. As target analyte, peginesatide (Omontys, Hematide), a recently approved pegylated erythropoietin-mimetic peptide of approximately 45 kDa, tested for the treatment of anaemia in patients with renal failure, was chosen, which has been prohibited in elite sports due to its assumed endurance enhancing effects. Therefore, a detection method for peginesatide employing DBS was developed based on extraction, proteolytic digestion and cation-exchange purification followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis. Eventually, the assay was validated for qualitative purposes and proved to be specific, sensitive (limit of detection, 10 ng/mL) and precise (relative standard deviations below 18 %), demonstrating the general suitability of DBS analysis in sports drug testing also for (pegylated) peptides.

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