BACKGROUND: 1α,25-dihydroxy vitamin D [1,25(OH)(2)D] is the active metabolite of vitamin D. Antibody-based detection methods lack specificity, but when combined with isotope dilution/ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC)-tandem mass spectrometry, immunoextraction provides an attractive method for 1,25(OH)(2)D. We developed a method for simultaneous quantification of 1,25(OH)(2)D(2) and 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) with a 4.6-min instrument cycle time. Results are available 36 h after sample preparation begins. METHODS: Sample preparation consisted of protein precipitation, immunoextraction with solid-phase anti-1,25(OH)(2)D antibody, and derivatization with 4-phenyl-1,2,4-triazoline-3,5-dione. Analytes were resolved using reversed-phase UPLC and quantified using positive ion electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry. We used hexadeuterated 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) and 1,25(OH)(2)D(2) as internal standards and performed method comparisons against the DiaSorin RIA and an LC-MS/MS method available at a reference laboratory. RESULTS: 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) intraassay and interassay imprecision was 5.6% and 8.0% (120 pmol/L) and 8.7% and 13% (48 pmol/L). Limits of detection and quantification were 1.5 pmol/L and 3.0 pmol/L, respectively. 1,25(OH)(2)D(2) intraassay and interassay imprecision was 8.7% and 11% (186 pmol/L) and 11% and 13% (58 pmol/L). Limits of detection and quantification were both 1.5 pmol/L. Comparison with RIA had a proportional bias of 0.75, constant bias of -4.1, and Pearson correlation (r(2)) of 0.31. Comparison with a reference LC-MS/MS assay had a proportional bias of 0.89, constant bias of 3.7, and r(2) of 0.88. CONCLUSIONS: Protein precipitation with antibody-based extraction is effective for sample preparation before LC-MS/MS analysis of derivatized 1,25(OH)(2)D. This method appears to have improved specificity over a clinically used RIA with low imprecision and limits of detection.
BACKGROUND: 1α,25-dihydroxy vitamin D [1,25(OH)(2)D] is the active metabolite of vitamin D. Antibody-based detection methods lack specificity, but when combined with isotope dilution/ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC)-tandem mass spectrometry, immunoextraction provides an attractive method for 1,25(OH)(2)D. We developed a method for simultaneous quantification of 1,25(OH)(2)D(2) and 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) with a 4.6-min instrument cycle time. Results are available 36 h after sample preparation begins. METHODS: Sample preparation consisted of protein precipitation, immunoextraction with solid-phase anti-1,25(OH)(2)D antibody, and derivatization with 4-phenyl-1,2,4-triazoline-3,5-dione. Analytes were resolved using reversed-phase UPLC and quantified using positive ion electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry. We used hexadeuterated 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) and 1,25(OH)(2)D(2) as internal standards and performed method comparisons against the DiaSorin RIA and an LC-MS/MS method available at a reference laboratory. RESULTS: 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) intraassay and interassay imprecision was 5.6% and 8.0% (120 pmol/L) and 8.7% and 13% (48 pmol/L). Limits of detection and quantification were 1.5 pmol/L and 3.0 pmol/L, respectively. 1,25(OH)(2)D(2) intraassay and interassay imprecision was 8.7% and 11% (186 pmol/L) and 11% and 13% (58 pmol/L). Limits of detection and quantification were both 1.5 pmol/L. Comparison with RIA had a proportional bias of 0.75, constant bias of -4.1, and Pearson correlation (r(2)) of 0.31. Comparison with a reference LC-MS/MS assay had a proportional bias of 0.89, constant bias of 3.7, and r(2) of 0.88. CONCLUSIONS: Protein precipitation with antibody-based extraction is effective for sample preparation before LC-MS/MS analysis of derivatized 1,25(OH)(2)D. This method appears to have improved specificity over a clinically used RIA with low imprecision and limits of detection.
Authors: Ravinder J Singh; Robert L Taylor; G Satyanarayana Reddy; Stefan K G Grebe Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-05-23 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Pavel A Aronov; Laura M Hall; Katja Dettmer; Charles B Stephensen; Bruce D Hammock Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2008-04-24 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Fadil M Hannan; Nicholas A Athanasou; James Teh; Christopher L M H Gibbons; Brian Shine; Rajesh V Thakker Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: David E Leaf; Edward D Siew; Michele F Eisenga; Karandeep Singh; Finnian R Mc Causland; Anand Srivastava; T Alp Ikizler; Lorraine B Ware; Adit A Ginde; John A Kellum; Paul M Palevsky; Myles Wolf; Sushrut S Waikar Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Debin Wan; Jun Yang; Bogdan Barnych; Sung Hee Hwang; Kin Sing Stephen Lee; Yongliang Cui; Jun Niu; Mitchell A Watsky; Bruce D Hammock Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Charles Ginsberg; Leila R Zelnick; Geoffrey A Block; Glenn M Chertow; Michel Chonchol; Andrew Hoofnagle; Bryan Kestenbaum; Ian H de Boer Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: David E Leaf; Marta Christov; Harald Jüppner; Edward Siew; T Alp Ikizler; Aihua Bian; Guanhua Chen; Venkata S Sabbisetti; Joseph V Bonventre; Xuan Cai; Myles Wolf; Sushrut S Waikar Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Nisha Bansal; Ronit Katz; Ian H de Boer; Bryan Kestenbaum; David S Siscovick; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Russell Tracy; Gail A Laughlin; Michael H Criqui; Mathew J Budoff; Dong Li; Joachim H Ix Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Michael C Sachs; Abigail Shoben; Gregory P Levin; Cassy Robinson-Cohen; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Nancy Swords-Jenny; Joachim H Ix; Matthew Budoff; Pamela L Lutsey; David S Siscovick; Bryan Kestenbaum; Ian H de Boer Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Curtis J Hedman; Donald A Wiebe; Subhakar Dey; Josh Plath; Joseph W Kemnitz; Toni E Ziegler Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 3.205