4.6 Article

Repeatability and reproducibility of desorption electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (DESI-MS) for the imaging analysis of human cancer tissue: a gateway for clinical applications

期刊

ANALYTICAL METHODS
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 71-80

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4ay01770f

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service (NHS) Trust and Imperial College London
  2. European Research Council [210356]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [210356] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we aim to demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of DESI-MS for the imaging analysis of human cancer tissue using a set of optimal geometric and electrospray solvent parameters. Oesophageal cancer tissue was retrieved from four quadrants of a freshly removed tumor specimen, snap frozen, cryo-sectioned and mounted on glass slides for DESI-MS image acquisition. Prior to assessing precision, optimal geometric and electrospray solvent parameters were determined to maximize the number of detected lipid species and associated Total Ion Count (TIC). The same settings were utilized for all subsequent experiments. Repeatability measurements were performed using the same instrument, by the same operator on a total of 16 tissue sections (four from each quadrant of the tumor). Reproducibility measurements were determined in a different laboratory, on a separate DESI-MS platform and by an independent operator on 4 sections of one quadrant and compared to the corresponding measurements made for the repeatability experiments. The mean +/- SD CV of lipid ion intensities was found to be 22 +/- 7% and 18 +/- 8% as measures of repeatability and reproducibility, respectively. In conclusion, DESI-MS has acceptable levels of reproducibility for the analysis of lipids in human cancer tissue and is suitable for the purposes of clinical research and diagnostics.

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

4.6
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