Cargando…

Evaluation of Lipid Extraction Protocols for Untargeted Analysis of Mouse Tissue Lipidome

Lipidomics refers to the full characterization of lipids present within a cell, tissue, organism, or biological system. One of the bottlenecks affecting reliable lipidomic analysis is the extraction of lipids from biological samples. An ideal extraction method should have a maximum lipid recovery an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Omar, Ashraf M., Zhang, Qibin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10535403/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37755282
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/metabo13091002
_version_ 1785112621500858368
author Omar, Ashraf M.
Zhang, Qibin
author_facet Omar, Ashraf M.
Zhang, Qibin
author_sort Omar, Ashraf M.
collection PubMed
description Lipidomics refers to the full characterization of lipids present within a cell, tissue, organism, or biological system. One of the bottlenecks affecting reliable lipidomic analysis is the extraction of lipids from biological samples. An ideal extraction method should have a maximum lipid recovery and the ability to extract a broad range of lipid classes with acceptable reproducibility. The most common lipid extraction relies on either protein precipitation (monophasic methods) or liquid–liquid partitioning (bi- or triphasic methods). In this study, three monophasic extraction systems, isopropanol (IPA), MeOH/MTBE/CHCl(3) (MMC), and EtOAc/EtOH (EE), alongside three biphasic extraction methods, Folch, butanol/MeOH/heptane/EtOAc (BUME), and MeOH/MTBE (MTBE), were evaluated for their performance in characterization of the mouse lipidome of six different tissue types, including pancreas, spleen, liver, brain, small intestine, and plasma. Sixteen lipid classes were investigated in this study using reversed-phase liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Results showed that all extraction methods had comparable recoveries for all tested lipid classes except lysophosphatidylcholines, lysophosphatidylethanolamines, acyl carnitines, sphingomyelines, and sphingosines. The recoveries of these classes were significantly lower with the MTBE method, which could be compensated by the addition of stable isotope-labeled internal standards prior to lipid extraction. Moreover, IPA and EE methods showed poor reproducibility in extracting lipids from most tested tissues. In general, Folch is the optimum method in terms of efficacy and reproducibility for extracting mouse pancreas, spleen, brain, and plasma. However, MMC and BUME methods are more favored when extracting mouse liver or intestine.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10535403
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105354032023-09-29 Evaluation of Lipid Extraction Protocols for Untargeted Analysis of Mouse Tissue Lipidome Omar, Ashraf M. Zhang, Qibin Metabolites Article Lipidomics refers to the full characterization of lipids present within a cell, tissue, organism, or biological system. One of the bottlenecks affecting reliable lipidomic analysis is the extraction of lipids from biological samples. An ideal extraction method should have a maximum lipid recovery and the ability to extract a broad range of lipid classes with acceptable reproducibility. The most common lipid extraction relies on either protein precipitation (monophasic methods) or liquid–liquid partitioning (bi- or triphasic methods). In this study, three monophasic extraction systems, isopropanol (IPA), MeOH/MTBE/CHCl(3) (MMC), and EtOAc/EtOH (EE), alongside three biphasic extraction methods, Folch, butanol/MeOH/heptane/EtOAc (BUME), and MeOH/MTBE (MTBE), were evaluated for their performance in characterization of the mouse lipidome of six different tissue types, including pancreas, spleen, liver, brain, small intestine, and plasma. Sixteen lipid classes were investigated in this study using reversed-phase liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Results showed that all extraction methods had comparable recoveries for all tested lipid classes except lysophosphatidylcholines, lysophosphatidylethanolamines, acyl carnitines, sphingomyelines, and sphingosines. The recoveries of these classes were significantly lower with the MTBE method, which could be compensated by the addition of stable isotope-labeled internal standards prior to lipid extraction. Moreover, IPA and EE methods showed poor reproducibility in extracting lipids from most tested tissues. In general, Folch is the optimum method in terms of efficacy and reproducibility for extracting mouse pancreas, spleen, brain, and plasma. However, MMC and BUME methods are more favored when extracting mouse liver or intestine. MDPI 2023-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10535403/ /pubmed/37755282 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/metabo13091002 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Omar, Ashraf M.
Zhang, Qibin
Evaluation of Lipid Extraction Protocols for Untargeted Analysis of Mouse Tissue Lipidome
title Evaluation of Lipid Extraction Protocols for Untargeted Analysis of Mouse Tissue Lipidome
title_full Evaluation of Lipid Extraction Protocols for Untargeted Analysis of Mouse Tissue Lipidome
title_fullStr Evaluation of Lipid Extraction Protocols for Untargeted Analysis of Mouse Tissue Lipidome
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Lipid Extraction Protocols for Untargeted Analysis of Mouse Tissue Lipidome
title_short Evaluation of Lipid Extraction Protocols for Untargeted Analysis of Mouse Tissue Lipidome
title_sort evaluation of lipid extraction protocols for untargeted analysis of mouse tissue lipidome
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10535403/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37755282
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/metabo13091002
work_keys_str_mv AT omarashrafm evaluationoflipidextractionprotocolsforuntargetedanalysisofmousetissuelipidome
AT zhangqibin evaluationoflipidextractionprotocolsforuntargetedanalysisofmousetissuelipidome