Cargando…

Mitigating analyte to stable isotope labelled internal standard cross-signal contribution in quantitative liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

BACKGROUND: Utilising stable isotope labelled internal standards (SIL-IS) in quantitative LC-MS/MS drug analysis is the most widely used approach to normalise for variability during sample quantification processes. However, compounds containing atoms such as Sulphur, Chlorine or Bromine, could poten...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Radovanovic, Mirjana, Jones, Graham, Day, Richard O., Galettis, Peter, Norris, Ross L.G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9065310/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35520954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsacl.2022.04.002
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Utilising stable isotope labelled internal standards (SIL-IS) in quantitative LC-MS/MS drug analysis is the most widely used approach to normalise for variability during sample quantification processes. However, compounds containing atoms such as Sulphur, Chlorine or Bromine, could potentially cause cross-signal contribution to the SIL-IS from the naturally occurring isotopes, resulting in non-linear calibration curves. A simple, novel method of mitigating the effect is presented here. It entails monitoring of a less abundant SIL-IS isotope, as the precursor ion, of a mass that has no/minimal isotopic contribution from the analyte isotopes. METHODS: Experiments were conducted on two LC-MS/MS analysers: Waters Xevo TQ-S and Shimadzu 8050. Flucloxacillin (FLX) was used as an example. Two transitions were selected for FLX (m/z 454 → 160 → 295) and one for each of the SIL-IS isotopes (m/z 458 → 160 for the isotope 457 g/mol and m/z 460 → 160 for the isotope 459 g/mol). Assay biases were assessed at three SIL-IS concentrations: 0.7, 7 and 14 mg/L for each isotope. RESULTS: When using the SIL-IS isotope m/z 458 → 160 at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L, biases were up to 36.9 % on both instruments. Increasing the SIL-IS concentration to 14 mg/L, reduced the bias to 5.8 %. Using the less abundant isotope, m/z 460 → 160, resulted in biases of 13.9 % at an SIL-IS concentration of 0.7 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: Applying this method will mitigate cross-signal contribution from the analyte isotopes to the corresponding SIL-IS, minimise the use of SIL-IS, and, thereby, reduce overall cost.