-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Lipidomic analysis of biological samples: Comparison of liquid chromatography, supercritical fluid chromatography and direct infusion mass spectrometry methods
M. Lísa, E. Cífková, M. Khalikova, M. Ovčačíková, M. Holčapek,
Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články
- MeSH
- chromatografie kapalinová * MeSH
- hmotnostní spektrometrie * MeSH
- lipidy analýza MeSH
- reprodukovatelnost výsledků MeSH
- superkritická fluidní chromatografie * MeSH
- výpočetní biologie metody MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
Lipidomic analysis of biological samples in a clinical research represents challenging task for analytical methods given by the large number of samples and their extreme complexity. In this work, we compare direct infusion (DI) and chromatography - mass spectrometry (MS) lipidomic approaches represented by three analytical methods in terms of comprehensiveness, sample throughput, and validation results for the lipidomic analysis of biological samples represented by tumor tissue, surrounding normal tissue, plasma, and erythrocytes of kidney cancer patients. Methods are compared in one laboratory using the identical analytical protocol to ensure comparable conditions. Ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography/MS (UHPLC/MS) method in hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography mode and DI-MS method are used for this comparison as the most widely used methods for the lipidomic analysis together with ultrahigh-performance supercritical fluid chromatography/MS (UHPSFC/MS) method showing promising results in metabolomics analyses. The nontargeted analysis of pooled samples is performed using all tested methods and 610 lipid species within 23 lipid classes are identified. DI method provides the most comprehensive results due to identification of some polar lipid classes, which are not identified by UHPLC and UHPSFC methods. On the other hand, UHPSFC method provides an excellent sensitivity for less polar lipid classes and the highest sample throughput within 10min method time. The sample consumption of DI method is 125 times higher than for other methods, while only 40μL of organic solvent is used for one sample analysis compared to 3.5mL and 4.9mL in case of UHPLC and UHPSFC methods, respectively. Methods are validated for the quantitative lipidomic analysis of plasma samples with one internal standard for each lipid class. Results show applicability of all tested methods for the lipidomic analysis of biological samples depending on the analysis requirements.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc18016277
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20180515103943.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 180515s2017 ne f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.chroma.2017.10.022 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29037587
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a ne
- 100 1_
- $a Lísa, Miroslav $u Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Pardubice, Studentská 573, 53210 Pardubice, Czech Republic. Electronic address: miroslav.lisa@gmail.com.
- 245 10
- $a Lipidomic analysis of biological samples: Comparison of liquid chromatography, supercritical fluid chromatography and direct infusion mass spectrometry methods / $c M. Lísa, E. Cífková, M. Khalikova, M. Ovčačíková, M. Holčapek,
- 520 9_
- $a Lipidomic analysis of biological samples in a clinical research represents challenging task for analytical methods given by the large number of samples and their extreme complexity. In this work, we compare direct infusion (DI) and chromatography - mass spectrometry (MS) lipidomic approaches represented by three analytical methods in terms of comprehensiveness, sample throughput, and validation results for the lipidomic analysis of biological samples represented by tumor tissue, surrounding normal tissue, plasma, and erythrocytes of kidney cancer patients. Methods are compared in one laboratory using the identical analytical protocol to ensure comparable conditions. Ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography/MS (UHPLC/MS) method in hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography mode and DI-MS method are used for this comparison as the most widely used methods for the lipidomic analysis together with ultrahigh-performance supercritical fluid chromatography/MS (UHPSFC/MS) method showing promising results in metabolomics analyses. The nontargeted analysis of pooled samples is performed using all tested methods and 610 lipid species within 23 lipid classes are identified. DI method provides the most comprehensive results due to identification of some polar lipid classes, which are not identified by UHPLC and UHPSFC methods. On the other hand, UHPSFC method provides an excellent sensitivity for less polar lipid classes and the highest sample throughput within 10min method time. The sample consumption of DI method is 125 times higher than for other methods, while only 40μL of organic solvent is used for one sample analysis compared to 3.5mL and 4.9mL in case of UHPLC and UHPSFC methods, respectively. Methods are validated for the quantitative lipidomic analysis of plasma samples with one internal standard for each lipid class. Results show applicability of all tested methods for the lipidomic analysis of biological samples depending on the analysis requirements.
- 650 12
- $a chromatografie kapalinová $7 D002853
- 650 12
- $a superkritická fluidní chromatografie $7 D025924
- 650 _2
- $a výpočetní biologie $x metody $7 D019295
- 650 _2
- $a lipidy $x analýza $7 D008055
- 650 12
- $a hmotnostní spektrometrie $7 D013058
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Cífková, Eva $u Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Pardubice, Studentská 573, 53210 Pardubice, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Khalikova, Maria $u Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Pardubice, Studentská 573, 53210 Pardubice, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Ovčačíková, Magdaléna $u Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Pardubice, Studentská 573, 53210 Pardubice, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Holčapek, Michal $u Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Pardubice, Studentská 573, 53210 Pardubice, Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00004962 $t Journal of chromatography. A $x 1873-3778 $g Roč. 1525, č. - (2017), s. 96-108
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29037587 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20180515 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20180515104117 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1299901 $s 1013117
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2017 $b 1525 $c - $d 96-108 $e 20171008 $i 1873-3778 $m Journal of chromatography. A, Including electrophoresis and other separation methods $n J Chromatogr A $x MED00004962
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20180515