4.4 Article

A high-recovery extraction procedure for quantitative analysis of substance P and opioid peptides in human cerebrospinal fluid

期刊

PEPTIDES
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 853-860

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0196-9781(00)00219-9

关键词

analysis; cerebrospinal fluid; enkephalins; opioid peptides; radioimmunoassay; substance P

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports an improved approach for the determination of neuropeptide levels in human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The method is based on sample acidification followed by liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) combined with radioimmunoassay. It was applied to study the recovery and level of some opioid peptides (Met-enkephalin-Arg(6)-Phe(7) and Leu-enkephalin-Arg(6)), substance P and the substance P1-7 fragment, which are all compounds known to be present in human CSF, The results indicated that the use of LLE highly improved the recovery of these peptides compared to current liquid-solid-phase extraction methods by using silica gel cartridges or mini-columns for ion-exchange chromatography. Peptides added to CSF in concentrations down to 10 fmol/ml were recovered in yields exceeding 80%. The mean recovery of synthetic peptides as recorded by radioimmunoassay in the LLE procedure was significantly improved when HCl was added to the sample. In contrast, when the I-125-labeled analogues of the peptides were added to CSF samples, the mean recovery of the four labeled peptides using the LLE procedure was markedly reduced in acidified samples. We also found that the inclusion of HCl effectively improved the removal of proteins present in the samples. As an application the levels of substance P and Met-enkephalin-Arg6-Phe7 in CSF samples from patients with chronic pain (fibromyalgia syndrome) were measured using the new procedure. It was possible to confirm a significant difference in the CSF levels of both peptides when comparing patients and controls. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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

4.4
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