Juan Sebastián Carreño Balcázar1, Roland J W Meesters. 1. Department of Chemistry, Grupo de Investigación en Química Analítica y Bioanalítica (GABIO), Universidad de los Andes, Cra. 1 No. 18A-10, Bogotá D.C. Colombia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: quantitative bioassays for determination of urinary creatinine concentrations using liquid urine and dried urine on paper disks (DUPD) specimens were developed and validated. The bioassays were cross-validated by means of measurement of the urinary creatinine concentrations applying DUPD (3 and 5 mm) and liquid urine specimens. RESULTS: LLOQ and LOD for all bioassays were 0.88 and 0.27 mmol/l creatinine, respectively. All bioassays were cross-validated by the analysis of urine samples from healthy voluntary individuals and bioassays performed were statistically not significantly different. Mean observed urinary creatinine concentrations ranged between 0.44 and 25.6, 0.24 and 23.9, 0.13 and 31.26 mmol/l for liquid, DUPD-5mm and DUPD-3mm bioassays, respectively. CONCLUSION: the advantage of the DUPD bioassays was the relatively small amounts of urine necessary, making these microsampling techniques attractive when limited amounts of urine specimens of, for example, rodents from drug development studies are available.
BACKGROUND: quantitative bioassays for determination of urinary creatinine concentrations using liquid urine and dried urine on paper disks (DUPD) specimens were developed and validated. The bioassays were cross-validated by means of measurement of the urinary creatinine concentrations applying DUPD (3 and 5 mm) and liquid urine specimens. RESULTS: LLOQ and LOD for all bioassays were 0.88 and 0.27 mmol/l creatinine, respectively. All bioassays were cross-validated by the analysis of urine samples from healthy voluntary individuals and bioassays performed were statistically not significantly different. Mean observed urinary creatinine concentrations ranged between 0.44 and 25.6, 0.24 and 23.9, 0.13 and 31.26 mmol/l for liquid, DUPD-5mm and DUPD-3mm bioassays, respectively. CONCLUSION: the advantage of the DUPD bioassays was the relatively small amounts of urine necessary, making these microsampling techniques attractive when limited amounts of urine specimens of, for example, rodents from drug development studies are available.
Authors: Zhidan Chen; Stephen L Coy; Evan L Pannkuk; Evagelia C Laiakis; Adam B Hall; Albert J Fornace; Paul Vouros Journal: J Am Soc Mass Spectrom Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Jeremy Drolet; Vladimir Tolstikov; Brian A Williams; Bennett P Greenwood; Collin Hill; Vivek K Vishnudas; Rangaprasad Sarangarajan; Niven R Narain; Michael A Kiebish Journal: Metabolites Date: 2017-07-15