BACKGROUND: We observed cases of false-positive results with the use of liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Different LC-MS/MS techniques that use the selected reaction-monitoring mode, routinely employed for the analysis and quantification of drugs and toxic compounds in biological matrices, were involved in the false-positive and potentially false-positive results obtained. We sought to analyze the causes of and solutions to this problem. METHODS: We used a previously reported LC-MS/MS general unknown screening method, as well as manual spectral investigation in 1 case, to perform verification and identification of interfering compounds. RESULTS: We observed that false-positive results involved: a metabolite of zolpidem that might have been mistaken for lysergic acid diethylamide, benzoylecgonine mistaken for atropine, and clomipramine and 3 phenothiazines that share several common ion transitions. CONCLUSIONS: To prevent problems such as those we experienced, we recommend the use of stable-isotope internal standards when possible, relative retention times, 2 transitions or more per compound when possible, and acceptable relative abundance ratios between transitions, with an experience-based tolerance of +/-15% for transitions with a relative abundance >10% and with an extension to +/-25% for transitions <10% when the concentration is at the limit of quantification. A powerful general unknown screening procedure can help to confirm suspected interferences. Our results indicate that the specificity of screening procedures is questionable for LC-MS/MS analyses performed in the selected reaction-monitoring mode and involving a large number of compounds with only 1 transition per compound.
BACKGROUND: We observed cases of false-positive results with the use of liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Different LC-MS/MS techniques that use the selected reaction-monitoring mode, routinely employed for the analysis and quantification of drugs and toxic compounds in biological matrices, were involved in the false-positive and potentially false-positive results obtained. We sought to analyze the causes of and solutions to this problem. METHODS: We used a previously reported LC-MS/MS general unknown screening method, as well as manual spectral investigation in 1 case, to perform verification and identification of interfering compounds. RESULTS: We observed that false-positive results involved: a metabolite of zolpidem that might have been mistaken for lysergic acid diethylamide, benzoylecgonine mistaken for atropine, and clomipramine and 3 phenothiazines that share several common ion transitions. CONCLUSIONS: To prevent problems such as those we experienced, we recommend the use of stable-isotope internal standards when possible, relative retention times, 2 transitions or more per compound when possible, and acceptable relative abundance ratios between transitions, with an experience-based tolerance of +/-15% for transitions with a relative abundance >10% and with an extension to +/-25% for transitions <10% when the concentration is at the limit of quantification. A powerful general unknown screening procedure can help to confirm suspected interferences. Our results indicate that the specificity of screening procedures is questionable for LC-MS/MS analyses performed in the selected reaction-monitoring mode and involving a large number of compounds with only 1 transition per compound.
Authors: Jack P Wang; Christopher M Shuford; Quanzi Li; Jina Song; Ying-Chung Lin; Ying-Hsuan Sun; Hsi-Chuan Chen; Cranos M Williams; David C Muddiman; Ronald R Sederoff; Vincent L Chiang Journal: Planta Date: 2012-05-25 Impact factor: 4.116