Christopher T Yarnes1, Julian Herszage1. 1. Stable Isotope Facility, University of California, Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Within the last decade, applications of compound-specific stable isotope analysis of nitrogen (δ15 N values) in amino acids (CSIA-AA) have developed rapidly, particularly within organismal ecology. Unlike with bulk stable isotope analysis (BSIA), the reproducibility of δ15 N-AA measurements has not been critically assessed. Two primary concerns include the diversity of techniques available for the derivatization of amino acids prior to analysis by gas chromatography/combustion/isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC/C/IRMS) and the myriad of standardization practices and quality assurance procedures used across studies. METHODS: We examined the relative effect of three normalization procedures, (1) internal reference calibration, (2) compound-specific calibration, and (3) scale-normalization, on the accuracy and precision of δ15 N-AA measurements by GC/C/IRMS and the comparability of δ15 N-AA measurements by two derivatization techniques, methoxycarbonylation-esterification and acetylation-esterification, across a range of organisms. RESULTS: The overall accuracy and precision of δ15 N-AA measurements were improved following both compound-specific calibration and scale-normalization, as was the comparability of δ15 N-AA measurements of individual amino acids between derivatization techniques across organisms. The mean difference of scale-normalized δ15 N-AA values across all organisms between the two derivatization techniques was 0.19‰, much less than the typical analytical error associated with δ15 N-AA measurements (±1‰). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of standardized calibration procedures will be important to establishing reproducibility in δ15 N-AA measurements, particularly across derivatization techniques. It is both technically practical and desirable for users of CSIA-AA to adopt practices in quality control and assessment similar to those outlined for BSIA, including the compound-specific calibration of δ15 N-AA values, followed by scale-normalization.
RATIONALE: Within the last decade, applications of compound-specific stable isotope analysis of nitrogen (δ15 N values) in amino acids (CSIA-AA) have developed rapidly, particularly within organismal ecology. Unlike with bulk stable isotope analysis (BSIA), the reproducibility of δ15 N-AA measurements has not been critically assessed. Two primary concerns include the diversity of techniques available for the derivatization of amino acids prior to analysis by gas chromatography/combustion/isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC/C/IRMS) and the myriad of standardization practices and quality assurance procedures used across studies. METHODS: We examined the relative effect of three normalization procedures, (1) internal reference calibration, (2) compound-specific calibration, and (3) scale-normalization, on the accuracy and precision of δ15 N-AA measurements by GC/C/IRMS and the comparability of δ15 N-AA measurements by two derivatization techniques, methoxycarbonylation-esterification and acetylation-esterification, across a range of organisms. RESULTS: The overall accuracy and precision of δ15 N-AA measurements were improved following both compound-specific calibration and scale-normalization, as was the comparability of δ15 N-AA measurements of individual amino acids between derivatization techniques across organisms. The mean difference of scale-normalized δ15 N-AA values across all organisms between the two derivatization techniques was 0.19‰, much less than the typical analytical error associated with δ15 N-AA measurements (±1‰). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of standardized calibration procedures will be important to establishing reproducibility in δ15 N-AA measurements, particularly across derivatization techniques. It is both technically practical and desirable for users of CSIA-AA to adopt practices in quality control and assessment similar to those outlined for BSIA, including the compound-specific calibration of δ15 N-AA values, followed by scale-normalization.
Authors: Jessica J Johnson; Pamela A Shaw; Matthew J Wooller; Colleen A Venti; Jonathan Krakoff; Susanne B Votruba; Diane M O'Brien Journal: J Nutr Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 4.687
Authors: Benjamin D Barst; Derek C G Muir; Diane M O'Brien; Matthew J Wooller Journal: Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Letícia G Pacheco; Nilva K Sakomura; Rafael M Suzuki; Juliano C P Dorigam; Gabriel S Viana; Jaap Van Milgen; Juliana C Denadai Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 2.741
Authors: Klervia Jaouen; Michael P Richards; Adeline Le Cabec; Frido Welker; William Rendu; Jean-Jacques Hublin; Marie Soressi; Sahra Talamo Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 11.205