Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Volumetric absorptive MicroSampling vs. other blood sampling materials in LC-MS-based protein analysis - preliminary investigations.
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2018 Jul 15; 156:239-246.JP

Abstract

The aim was to evaluate the performance of different microsampling materials in LC-MS-based protein analysis. The evaluated materials were the Volumetric Absorptive MicroSampling (VAMS) device, the pure cellulose sampling material (DMPK-C) and the water-soluble material (carboxymethyl cellulose, CMC), with the main emphasis on VAMS. Six proteins with different physicochemical properties were used as model proteins. A quick and generic sample preparation consisting of extraction/dissolution of the blood spot, tryptic digestion and subsequent matrix precipitation was applied prior to analysis. The recovery from VAMS, compared to DMPK-C, was dependent on the protein analyte: Lower recovery compared to DMPK-C was seen for β-lactoglobulin and myoglobin (74% and 80%, respectively) while higher recovery compared to DMPK-C was seen for cytochrome c and albumin (149% and 197%, respectively). The recovery from CMC was comparable to the recovery from DMPK-C for all proteins except for cytochrome c (76%). Hematocrit bias was evaluated for DMPK-C and VAMS, and the blood hematocrit influenced the protein analysis from both the materials. A preliminary evaluation was performed for VAMS: The correlation coefficient (R2 ≥ 0.983), the accuracy (71-101%) and the precision (RSD ≤ 20%) were determined for blood spiked with the six model proteins.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, Norway.Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, Norway.Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, Norway.Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: t.g.halvorsen@farmasi.uio.no.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29729637

Citation

Andersen, Ida Kristine Lysgaard, et al. "Volumetric Absorptive MicroSampling Vs. Other Blood Sampling Materials in LC-MS-based Protein Analysis - Preliminary Investigations." Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, vol. 156, 2018, pp. 239-246.
Andersen IKL, Rosting C, Gjelstad A, et al. Volumetric absorptive MicroSampling vs. other blood sampling materials in LC-MS-based protein analysis - preliminary investigations. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2018;156:239-246.
Andersen, I. K. L., Rosting, C., Gjelstad, A., & Halvorsen, T. G. (2018). Volumetric absorptive MicroSampling vs. other blood sampling materials in LC-MS-based protein analysis - preliminary investigations. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 156, 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2018.04.036
Andersen IKL, et al. Volumetric Absorptive MicroSampling Vs. Other Blood Sampling Materials in LC-MS-based Protein Analysis - Preliminary Investigations. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2018 Jul 15;156:239-246. PubMed PMID: 29729637.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Volumetric absorptive MicroSampling vs. other blood sampling materials in LC-MS-based protein analysis - preliminary investigations. AU - Andersen,Ida Kristine Lysgaard, AU - Rosting,Cecilie, AU - Gjelstad,Astrid, AU - Halvorsen,Trine Grønhaug, Y1 - 2018/04/24/ PY - 2017/11/22/received PY - 2018/04/20/revised PY - 2018/04/22/accepted PY - 2018/5/8/pubmed PY - 2018/10/23/medline PY - 2018/5/6/entrez KW - Dried blood spot KW - LC–MS KW - Microsampling KW - Proteins SP - 239 EP - 246 JF - Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis JO - J Pharm Biomed Anal VL - 156 N2 - The aim was to evaluate the performance of different microsampling materials in LC-MS-based protein analysis. The evaluated materials were the Volumetric Absorptive MicroSampling (VAMS) device, the pure cellulose sampling material (DMPK-C) and the water-soluble material (carboxymethyl cellulose, CMC), with the main emphasis on VAMS. Six proteins with different physicochemical properties were used as model proteins. A quick and generic sample preparation consisting of extraction/dissolution of the blood spot, tryptic digestion and subsequent matrix precipitation was applied prior to analysis. The recovery from VAMS, compared to DMPK-C, was dependent on the protein analyte: Lower recovery compared to DMPK-C was seen for β-lactoglobulin and myoglobin (74% and 80%, respectively) while higher recovery compared to DMPK-C was seen for cytochrome c and albumin (149% and 197%, respectively). The recovery from CMC was comparable to the recovery from DMPK-C for all proteins except for cytochrome c (76%). Hematocrit bias was evaluated for DMPK-C and VAMS, and the blood hematocrit influenced the protein analysis from both the materials. A preliminary evaluation was performed for VAMS: The correlation coefficient (R2 ≥ 0.983), the accuracy (71-101%) and the precision (RSD ≤ 20%) were determined for blood spiked with the six model proteins. SN - 1873-264X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29729637/Volumetric_absorptive_MicroSampling_vs__other_blood_sampling_materials_in_LC_MS_based_protein_analysis___preliminary_investigations_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0731-7085(17)32894-7 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -