4.7 Article

Enzyme and acid deconjugation of plasma sulfated metanephrines

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 430, 期 -, 页码 125-128

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2013.12.044

关键词

Metanephrines; Sulfatase; Desulfonation

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. EPFL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Total (i.e. free + sulfated) metanephrines in plasma is a biomarker for the diagnosis of pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma. Sulfated metanephrines must be completely deconjugated by perchloric add hydrolysis or sulfatase treatment prior to analytical measurement to enable quantification by current techniques. In this report, we compare the yield and efficiency of both methods. Methods: The deconjugation rate of synthetic sulfated metanephrines (normetanephrine (S-NMN), metanephrine (S-MN) and methoxytyramine (S-MT)) spiked in charcoal-stripped plasma was determined by boiling perchloric acid and compared to sulfatase treatment. Total plasma metanephrines (MN, NMN and MT) were also determined in patient samples by both methods. Results: The complete deconjugation of sulfated metanephrines is achieved after 30 min incubation with 0.1 M boiling perchloric acid or upon sulfatase treatment. Ten minutes of acid hydrolysis (gold-standard) leads to a 30% underestimation of metanephrine concentrations. The enzyme hydrolysis is time and amount of sulfatase dependent. The rate of hydrolysis is analyte-dependent (MT> > NMN > MN), although it must contain at least 0.8 U/ml of sample. The Deming regression curves comparing acid versus enzyme hydrolysis on patient samples assessed that both methods gave similar unbiased concentrations. Conclusion: Enzyme and acid treatments are equivalent and efficient for removing sulfate from metanephrines as long as the optimal protocol is used for each method. However, the gold standard method for acid hydrolysis at 10 min established more than 20 years ago was not satisfactory regarding the hydrolysis of metanephrines in plasma. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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