Lili Guo1, Andrew J Worth1, Clementina Mesaros1, Nathaniel W Snyder2, Jerry D Glickson3, Ian A Blair1. 1. Penn SRP and Center for Excellence in Environmental Toxicology, Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 2. A.J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Mass spectrometric (MS) analysis of low molecular weight polar metabolites can be challenging because of poor chromatographic resolution of isomers and insufficient ionization efficiency. These metabolites include intermediates in key metabolic pathways, such as glycolysis, the pentose phosphate pathway, and the Krebs cycle. Therefore, sensitive, specific, and comprehensive quantitative analysis of these metabolites in biological fluids or cell culture models can provide insight into multiple disease states where perturbed metabolism plays a role. METHODS: An ion-pairing reversed-phase ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (IP-RP-UHPLC)/MS approach to separate and analyze biochemically relevant phosphate- and carboxylic acid-containing metabolites was developed. Diisopropylethylamine (DIPEA) was used as an IP reagent in combination with reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RP-LC) and a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer using selected reaction monitoring (SRM) and negative electrospray ionization (NESI). An additional reagent, hexafluoroisopropanol (HFIP), which has been previously used to improve sensitivity of nucleotide analysis by UHPLC/MS, was used to enhance sensitivity. RESULTS: HFIP versus acetic acid, when added with the IP base, increased the sensitivity of IP-RP-UHPLC/NESI-MS up to 10-fold for certain analytes including fructose-1,6-bisphosphate, phosphoenolpyruvate, and 6-phosphogluconate. It also improved the retention of the metabolites on a C18 reversed-phase column, and allowed the chromatographic separation of important isomeric metabolites. This methodology was amenable to quantification of key metabolites in cell culture experiments. The applicability of the method was demonstrated by monitoring the metabolic adaptations resulting from rapamycin treatment of DB-1 human melanoma cells. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid, sensitive, and specific IP-RP-UHPLC/NESI-MS method was used to quantify metabolites from several biochemical pathways. IP with DIPEA and HFIP increased the sensitivity and improved chromatographic separation when used with reversed-phase UHPLC.
RATIONALE: Mass spectrometric (MS) analysis of low molecular weight polar metabolites can be challenging because of poor chromatographic resolution of isomers and insufficient ionization efficiency. These metabolites include intermediates in key metabolic pathways, such as glycolysis, the pentose phosphate pathway, and the Krebs cycle. Therefore, sensitive, specific, and comprehensive quantitative analysis of these metabolites in biological fluids or cell culture models can provide insight into multiple disease states where perturbed metabolism plays a role. METHODS: An ion-pairing reversed-phase ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (IP-RP-UHPLC)/MS approach to separate and analyze biochemically relevant phosphate- and carboxylic acid-containing metabolites was developed. Diisopropylethylamine (DIPEA) was used as an IP reagent in combination with reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RP-LC) and a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer using selected reaction monitoring (SRM) and negative electrospray ionization (NESI). An additional reagent, hexafluoroisopropanol (HFIP), which has been previously used to improve sensitivity of nucleotide analysis by UHPLC/MS, was used to enhance sensitivity. RESULTS:HFIP versus acetic acid, when added with the IP base, increased the sensitivity of IP-RP-UHPLC/NESI-MS up to 10-fold for certain analytes including fructose-1,6-bisphosphate, phosphoenolpyruvate, and 6-phosphogluconate. It also improved the retention of the metabolites on a C18 reversed-phase column, and allowed the chromatographic separation of important isomeric metabolites. This methodology was amenable to quantification of key metabolites in cell culture experiments. The applicability of the method was demonstrated by monitoring the metabolic adaptations resulting from rapamycin treatment of DB-1 humanmelanoma cells. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid, sensitive, and specific IP-RP-UHPLC/NESI-MS method was used to quantify metabolites from several biochemical pathways. IP with DIPEA and HFIP increased the sensitivity and improved chromatographic separation when used with reversed-phase UHPLC.
Authors: N V Rajeshkumar; Prasanta Dutta; Shinichi Yabuuchi; Roeland F de Wilde; Gary V Martinez; Anne Le; Jurre J Kamphorst; Joshua D Rabinowitz; Sanjay K Jain; Manuel Hidalgo; Chi V Dang; Robert J Gillies; Anirban Maitra Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: J Kolmert; B Forngren; J Lindberg; J Öhd; K M Åberg; G Nilsson; T Moritz; A Nordström Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Lili Guo; Alexander A Shestov; Andrew J Worth; Kavindra Nath; David S Nelson; Dennis B Leeper; Jerry D Glickson; Ian A Blair Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2015-10-31 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Erika S Dahl; Raquel Buj; Kelly E Leon; Jordan M Newell; Yuka Imamura; Benjamin G Bitler; Nathaniel W Snyder; Katherine M Aird Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Carrie Sims; Noelle Salliant; Andrew J Worth; Robert Parry; Clementina Mesaros; Ian A Blair; Nathaniel W Snyder Journal: Transfusion Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Yogev Sela; Jinyang Li; Shivahamy Maheswaran; Robert Norgard; Salina Yuan; Maimon Hubbi; Miriam Doepner; Jimmy P Xu; Elaine S Ho; Clementina Mesaros; Colin Sheehan; Grace Croley; Alexander Muir; Ian A Blair; Ophir Shalem; Chi V Dang; Ben Z Stanger Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 13.312
Authors: David W Frederick; Sophie Trefely; Alexia Buas; Jason Goodspeed; Jay Singh; Clementina Mesaros; Joseph A Baur; Nathaniel W Snyder Journal: Analyst Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 4.616
Authors: QingQing Wang; Lili Guo; Cassandra J Strawser; Lauren A Hauser; Wei-Ting Hwang; Nathaniel W Snyder; David R Lynch; Clementina Mesaros; Ian A Blair Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Roddy S O'Connor; Lili Guo; Saba Ghassemi; Nathaniel W Snyder; Andrew J Worth; Liwei Weng; Yoonseok Kam; Benjamin Philipson; Sophie Trefely; Selene Nunez-Cruz; Ian A Blair; Carl H June; Michael C Milone Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Christopher Ecker; Lili Guo; Stefana Voicu; Luis Gil-de-Gómez; Andrew Medvec; Luis Cortina; Jackie Pajda; Melanie Andolina; Maria Torres-Castillo; Jennifer L Donato; Sarya Mansour; Evan R Zynda; Pei-Yi Lin; Angel Varela-Rohena; Ian A Blair; James L Riley Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Raquel Buj; Chi-Wei Chen; Erika S Dahl; Kelly E Leon; Rostislav Kuskovsky; Natella Maglakelidze; Maithili Navaratnarajah; Gao Zhang; Mary T Doan; Helen Jiang; Michael Zaleski; Lydia Kutzler; Holly Lacko; Yiling Lu; Gordon B Mills; Raghavendra Gowda; Gavin P Robertson; Joshua I Warrick; Meenhard Herlyn; Yuka Imamura; Scot R Kimball; David J DeGraff; Nathaniel W Snyder; Katherine M Aird Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Yang Zhang; Yi Xu; Wenyun Lu; Jonathan M Ghergurovich; Lili Guo; Ian A Blair; Joshua D Rabinowitz; Xiaolu Yang Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Katharina Huber; Dina C Hofer; Sophie Trefely; Helmut J Pelzmann; Corina Madreiter-Sokolowski; Madalina Duta-Mare; Stefanie Schlager; Gert Trausinger; Sarah Stryeck; Wolfgang F Graier; Dagmar Kolb; Christoph Magnes; Nathaniel W Snyder; Andreas Prokesch; Dagmar Kratky; Tobias Madl; Kathryn E Wellen; Juliane G Bogner-Strauss Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 5.011