内标选择对血液中长链脂肪酸测量结果的影响

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
John M. Goodwin VII, Heather C. Kuiper, Barrett Brister, Hubert W. Vesper
{"title":"内标选择对血液中长链脂肪酸测量结果的影响","authors":"John M. Goodwin VII,&nbsp;Heather C. Kuiper,&nbsp;Barrett Brister,&nbsp;Hubert W. Vesper","doi":"10.1016/j.jmsacl.2024.07.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Internal standards correct for measurement variation due to sample loss. Isotope labeled analytes are ideal internal standards for the measurement of fatty acids in human plasma but are not always readily available. For this reason, quantification of multiple analytes at once is most often done using only a single or few internal standards. The magnitude of the impact this has on method accuracy and precision is not well studied for gas chromatography-mass spectrometry systems.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aims to estimate bias and changes in uncertainty associated with using alternative fatty acid isotopologue internal standards for the estimation of similar or dissimilar long chain fatty acids.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Using a previously reported method for the quantification of 27 fatty acids in human plasma using 18 internal standards we obtained estimates of bias and uncertainty at up to three levels of fatty acid concentration.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>With some notable exceptions, method accuracy remained relatively stable when using an alternative internal standard (Median Relative Absolute Percent Bias: 1.76%, Median Spike-Recovery Absolute Percent Bias: 8.82%), with larger changes in method precision (Median Increase in Variance: 141%). Additionally, the degree of difference between analyte and internal standard structure was related to the magnitude of bias and uncertainty of the measurement.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The data presented here show that the choice of internal standard used to estimate fatty acid concentration can affect the accuracy and reliability of measurement results and, therefore, needs to be assessed carefully when developing analytical methods for the measurement of fatty acid profiles.</p><p>Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Public Health Service, and the US Department of Health and Human Services.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52406,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab","volume":"33 ","pages":"Pages 22-30"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667145X24000257/pdfft?md5=5b14caa1db281421162ac06d9d0ebfcc&pid=1-s2.0-S2667145X24000257-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of internal standard selection on measurement results for long chain fatty acids in blood\",\"authors\":\"John M. Goodwin VII,&nbsp;Heather C. Kuiper,&nbsp;Barrett Brister,&nbsp;Hubert W. Vesper\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmsacl.2024.07.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Internal standards correct for measurement variation due to sample loss. Isotope labeled analytes are ideal internal standards for the measurement of fatty acids in human plasma but are not always readily available. For this reason, quantification of multiple analytes at once is most often done using only a single or few internal standards. The magnitude of the impact this has on method accuracy and precision is not well studied for gas chromatography-mass spectrometry systems.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aims to estimate bias and changes in uncertainty associated with using alternative fatty acid isotopologue internal standards for the estimation of similar or dissimilar long chain fatty acids.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Using a previously reported method for the quantification of 27 fatty acids in human plasma using 18 internal standards we obtained estimates of bias and uncertainty at up to three levels of fatty acid concentration.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>With some notable exceptions, method accuracy remained relatively stable when using an alternative internal standard (Median Relative Absolute Percent Bias: 1.76%, Median Spike-Recovery Absolute Percent Bias: 8.82%), with larger changes in method precision (Median Increase in Variance: 141%). Additionally, the degree of difference between analyte and internal standard structure was related to the magnitude of bias and uncertainty of the measurement.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The data presented here show that the choice of internal standard used to estimate fatty acid concentration can affect the accuracy and reliability of measurement results and, therefore, needs to be assessed carefully when developing analytical methods for the measurement of fatty acid profiles.</p><p>Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Public Health Service, and the US Department of Health and Human Services.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab\",\"volume\":\"33 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 22-30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667145X24000257/pdfft?md5=5b14caa1db281421162ac06d9d0ebfcc&pid=1-s2.0-S2667145X24000257-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667145X24000257\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667145X24000257","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

内标可纠正因样品流失而造成的测量差异。同位素标记的分析物是测量人体血浆中脂肪酸的理想内标,但并非总能轻易获得。因此,通常只使用一种或几种内标来同时对多种分析物进行定量。对于气相色谱-质谱联用系统来说,这对方法准确度和精密度的影响程度还没有得到很好的研究。本研究旨在估算使用替代脂肪酸同位素内标估算相似或不同长链脂肪酸时的偏差和不确定性变化。我们使用以前报道过的一种方法,用 18 种内标物对人体血浆中的 27 种脂肪酸进行定量,得出了多达三个脂肪酸浓度水平下的偏差和不确定性估计值。除了一些明显的例外,使用替代内标时,方法的准确度保持相对稳定(相对绝对百分比偏差中值:1.76%,加标回收绝对百分比偏差中值:8.82%),而方法的精确度变化较大(方差增加中值:141%)。此外,分析物和内标结构的差异程度与测量的偏差和不确定性大小有关。本文提供的数据表明,用于估算脂肪酸浓度的内标物的选择会影响测量结果的准确性和可靠性,因此,在开发测量脂肪酸概况的分析方法时需要仔细评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of internal standard selection on measurement results for long chain fatty acids in blood

Introduction

Internal standards correct for measurement variation due to sample loss. Isotope labeled analytes are ideal internal standards for the measurement of fatty acids in human plasma but are not always readily available. For this reason, quantification of multiple analytes at once is most often done using only a single or few internal standards. The magnitude of the impact this has on method accuracy and precision is not well studied for gas chromatography-mass spectrometry systems.

Objective

This study aims to estimate bias and changes in uncertainty associated with using alternative fatty acid isotopologue internal standards for the estimation of similar or dissimilar long chain fatty acids.

Method

Using a previously reported method for the quantification of 27 fatty acids in human plasma using 18 internal standards we obtained estimates of bias and uncertainty at up to three levels of fatty acid concentration.

Results

With some notable exceptions, method accuracy remained relatively stable when using an alternative internal standard (Median Relative Absolute Percent Bias: 1.76%, Median Spike-Recovery Absolute Percent Bias: 8.82%), with larger changes in method precision (Median Increase in Variance: 141%). Additionally, the degree of difference between analyte and internal standard structure was related to the magnitude of bias and uncertainty of the measurement.

Conclusion

The data presented here show that the choice of internal standard used to estimate fatty acid concentration can affect the accuracy and reliability of measurement results and, therefore, needs to be assessed carefully when developing analytical methods for the measurement of fatty acid profiles.

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Public Health Service, and the US Department of Health and Human Services.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab
Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab Health Professions-Medical Laboratory Technology
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
41
审稿时长
81 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信