J Krijt1, M Vacková, V Kozich. 1. Institute of Inherited Metabolic Disorders, Charles University, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Ke Karlovu 2, Prague 2, Czech Republic. jkrijt@LF1.cuni.cz
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aminothiols have been implicated in the pathogenesis of arteriosclerosis, and reliable methods are needed to determine their concentrations in body fluids. We present a comparison of two analytical methods and focus on the reduction of low-molecular weight and protein-mixed disulfides of homocysteine, cysteine, cysteinyl-glycine, and glutathione. METHODS: The plasma total aminothiol profile was determined by HPLC with fluorescence detection after derivatization with ammonium 7-fluorobenzo-2-oxa-1,3-diazole-4-sulfonate. Disulfides and protein-bound aminothiols were reduced by either tri-n-butylphosphine (the TBP method) or tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (the TCEP method); the effects of temperature, time of reduction, and concentration of reductants were evaluated. RESULTS: The intraassay imprecision (CV) was <3% for all aminothiols using both methods. The interassay CVs for total cysteine (tCys), total cysteinyl-glycine (tCys-Gly), and total homocysteine (tHcy) were <4% and <8% for the TCEP and TBP methods, respectively, whereas for total glutathione (tGSH) the interassay CV was >12% for both methods. Deming regression and Bland-Altman difference plots showed positive biases for total aminothiol concentrations determined by the TCEP method relative to the TBP method. The mean proportional biases were 65%, 27%, 6%, and 60% for tCys, tCys-Gly, tHcy, and tGSH, respectively. The calculated concentrations of total aminothiols by the TCEP method were less influenced by changes in temperature and concentration of reducing agent or by calibrator matrix. CONCLUSIONS: The agreement between the TCEP and TBP methods was considerably lower for the determination of tCys, tCys-Gly, and tGSH than for tHcy. For total-aminothiol determination, the TCEP method yields better reproducibility and is more robust than the TBP method.
BACKGROUND:Aminothiols have been implicated in the pathogenesis of arteriosclerosis, and reliable methods are needed to determine their concentrations in body fluids. We present a comparison of two analytical methods and focus on the reduction of low-molecular weight and protein-mixed disulfides of homocysteine, cysteine, cysteinyl-glycine, and glutathione. METHODS: The plasma total aminothiol profile was determined by HPLC with fluorescence detection after derivatization with ammonium 7-fluorobenzo-2-oxa-1,3-diazole-4-sulfonate. Disulfides and protein-bound aminothiols were reduced by either tri-n-butylphosphine (the TBP method) or tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (the TCEP method); the effects of temperature, time of reduction, and concentration of reductants were evaluated. RESULTS: The intraassay imprecision (CV) was <3% for all aminothiols using both methods. The interassay CVs for total cysteine (tCys), total cysteinyl-glycine (tCys-Gly), and total homocysteine (tHcy) were <4% and <8% for the TCEP and TBP methods, respectively, whereas for total glutathione (tGSH) the interassay CV was >12% for both methods. Deming regression and Bland-Altman difference plots showed positive biases for total aminothiol concentrations determined by the TCEP method relative to the TBP method. The mean proportional biases were 65%, 27%, 6%, and 60% for tCys, tCys-Gly, tHcy, and tGSH, respectively. The calculated concentrations of total aminothiols by the TCEP method were less influenced by changes in temperature and concentration of reducing agent or by calibrator matrix. CONCLUSIONS: The agreement between the TCEP and TBP methods was considerably lower for the determination of tCys, tCys-Gly, and tGSH than for tHcy. For total-aminothiol determination, the TCEP method yields better reproducibility and is more robust than the TBP method.
Authors: Lisa A Peterson; Meredith E Cummings; Jacqueline Y Chan; Choua C Vu; Brock A Matter Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: Jan P Kraus; Jindrich Hasek; Viktor Kozich; Renata Collard; Sarah Venezia; Bohumila Janosíková; Jian Wang; Sally P Stabler; Robert H Allen; Cornelis Jakobs; Christine T Finn; Yin-Hsiu Chien; Wuh-Liang Hwu; Robert A Hegele; S Harvey Mudd Journal: Mol Genet Metab Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 4.797
Authors: Thomas D Nolin; M Elizabeth McMenamin; Jonathan Himmelfarb Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: Michal Pravenec; Viktor Kozich; Jakub Krijt; Jitka Sokolová; Václav Zídek; Vladimír Landa; Miroslava Simáková; Petr Mlejnek; Jan Silhavy; Olena Oliyarnyk; Ludmila Kazdová; Theodore W Kurtz Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Tomas Majtan; Wendell Jones; Jakub Krijt; Insun Park; Warren D Kruger; Viktor Kožich; Steven Bassnett; Erez M Bublil; Jan P Kraus Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: M Orendác; J Zeman; S P Stabler; R H Allen; J P Kraus; O Bodamer; S Stöckler-Ipsiroglu; J Kvasnicka; V Kozich Journal: J Inherit Metab Dis Date: 2003 Impact factor: 4.982
Authors: Viktor Kožich; Tamás Ditrói; Jitka Sokolová; Michaela Křížková; Jakub Krijt; Pavel Ješina; Peter Nagy Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2018-11-25 Impact factor: 8.739