4.5 Article

Measurement of marine osmolytes in mammalian serum by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 420, 期 1, 页码 7-12

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2011.09.013

关键词

Osmolytes; TMAO; Homarine; Serum; Plasma; LC-MS/MS; Dietary biomarker

资金

  1. National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs [0538592]
  2. Office of Polar Programs (OPP)
  3. Directorate For Geosciences [0538592] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osmolytes are accumulated intracellularly to offset the effects of osmotic stress and protect cellular proteins against denaturation. Because different taxa accumulate different osmolytes, they can also be used as dietary biomarkers to study foraging. Potential osmolyte biomarkers include glycine betaine, trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), homarine, dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP), and the osmolyte analog arsenobetaine (AsB). We present a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay for the simultaneous measurement of these osmolytes in serum or plasma. Varying concentrations of osmolytes were added to serum and samples and extracted in 90% acetonitrile and 10% methanol containing 10 mu M deuterated internal standards (D-9-glycine betaine, D-9-trimethylamine-N-oxide, C-13(2)-arsenobetaine, D-6-DMSP, and D-4-homarine). Analytes were separated on a normal-phase modified silica column and detected using isotope dilution tandem mass spectrometry in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. The assay was linear for all six compounds (r(2) values = 0.983-0.996). Recoveries were greater than 85%, and precision for within-batch coefficients of variation (CVs) were less than 8.2% and between-batch CVs were less than 6.1%. Limits of detection ranged from 0.02 to 0.12 mu mol/L. LC-MS/MS is a simple method with high throughput for measuring low levels of osmolytes that are often present in biological samples. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. 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