In-tube solid-phase microextraction directly coupled to tandem mass spectrometry for anandamide and 2-arachidonoylglycerol determination in rat brain samples from an animal model of Parkinson's disease.

To evaluate the endocannabinoid system in an animal model of Parkinson's disease, in-tube solid-phase microextraction (in-tube SPME) was directly coupled to a tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) system for determination of the endocannabinoids anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) in rat brain samples. In-tube SPME-which consisted of a microtube of restricted access material (RAM) with a hydrophilic diol external surface and a hydrophobic octyl inner surface-efficiently excluded (up to 95%) macromolecules from the biological samples and selectively pre-concentrated the analytes. In-tube SPME parameters, such as sample volume, mobile phases, flow rate, and pre-concentration time, were evaluated to improve the extraction efficiency and throughput performance. The selectivity of the in-tube SPME and MS/MS (MRM mode) techniques allowed them to be directly coupled online, which dismissed the need for the chromatographic separation step. The in-tube SPME-MS/MS method was validated and shown to be linear from 6.0 to 30.0 ng mL-1 for AEA and from 10.0 to 100.0 ng mL-1 for 2-AG; the intra- and inter-assay accuracy and precision were lower than 15%. Parallelism between the calibration curves constructed in the matrix and aqueous solution confirmed that there was no matrix effect. The method allowed endogenous concentrations of AEA and 2-AG to be determined in rat brain striatum from unilaterally 6-hydroxydopamine-lesioned animals. The concentrations of these endocannabinoids in striatum ipsilateral and contralateral to the lesion differed significantly (p<0.001).

Surrogate matrix and surrogate analyte approaches for definitive quantitation of endogenous biomolecules.

BACKGROUND: Quantitation of biomarkers by LC-MS/MS is complicated by the presence of endogenous analytes. This challenge is most commonly overcome by calibration using an authentic standard spiked into a surrogate matrix devoid of the target analyte. A second approach involves use of a stable-isotope-labeled standard as a surrogate analyte to allow calibration in the actual biological matrix. For both methods, parallelism between calibration standards and the target analyte in biological matrix must be demonstrated in order to ensure accurate quantitation. RESULTS: In this communication, the surrogate matrix and surrogate analyte approaches are compared for the analysis of five amino acids in human plasma: alanine, valine, methionine, leucine and isoleucine. In addition, methodology based on standard addition is introduced, which enables a robust examination of parallelism in both surrogate analyte and surrogate matrix methods prior to formal validation. Results from additional assays are presented to introduce the standard-addition methodology and to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. CONCLUSION: For the analysis of amino acids in human plasma, comparable precision and accuracy were obtained by the surrogate matrix and surrogate analyte methods. Both assays were well within tolerances prescribed by regulatory guidance for validation of xenobiotic assays. When stable-isotope-labeled standards are readily available, the surrogate analyte approach allows for facile method development. By comparison, the surrogate matrix method requires greater up-front method development; however, this deficit is offset by the long-term advantage of simplified sample analysis.