4.5 Article

Quantification of bioactive acylethanolamides in rat plasma by electrospray mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 280, 期 1, 页码 87-93

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/abio.2000.4509

关键词

anandamide; fatty acid ethanolamides; cannabinoid receptors; high-performance liquid chromatography; mass spectrometry

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA12447, DA12431] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We developed a high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS) method for the identification and quantification of anandamide, an endogenous cannabinoid substance, and other fatty acid ethanolamides (AEs) in biological samples. Using a mobile-phase system of methanol/water and gradient elution, we achieved satisfactory resolution of all major AEs, including anandamide, palmitylethanolamide (PEA),and oleylethanolamide (OEA), Electrospray-generated quasi-molecular species were used as diagnostic ions and detected by selected ion monitoring (SIM). Synthetic deuterium-labeled AEs were used as internal standards, and quantification was carried out by isotope dilution, A linear correlation (r(2) = 0.99) was observed in the calibration curves for standard AEs over the range 0-0.5 nmol. Detection limits between 0.1 and 0.3 pmol per sample and quantification limits between 0.5 and 1.2 pmol per sample were obtained. The method was applied to the quantification of:anandamide, PEG and OEA in plasma prepared from rat blood collected either by cardiac puncture or by decapitation. After cardiac puncture, AE levels were-in the low-nanomolar range: anandamide, 3.1 +/- 0.6 pmol/ml; PEA, 9.4 +/- 1.6 pmol/ml; OEA, 9.2 +/- 1.8 pmol/ml (mean +/- SE, n = 9). By contrast, after decapitation AEs were dramatically elevated (anandamide, 144 +/- 13 pmol/ml; PEA, 255 +/- 55 pmol/ml; OEA 175 +/- 48 pmol/ml). Thus, disruptive procedures of blood collection may result in gross overestimates in the concentrations of circulating AEs. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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