| Literature DB >> 28203476 |
Melisa E Yonny1, Ariel Rodríguez Torressi2, Mónica A Nazareno1, Soledad Cerutti3.
Abstract
Early production of melon plant (Cucumis melo) is carried out using tunnels structures, where extreme temperatures lead to high reactive oxygen species production and, hence, oxidative stress. Malondialdehyde (MDA) is a recognized biomarker of the advanced oxidative status in a biological system. Thus a reliable, sensitive, simple, selective, and rapid separative strategy based on ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to positive electrospray-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-(+)ESI-MS/MS) was developed for the first time to measure MDA, without derivatization, in leaves of melon plants exposed to stress conditions. The detection and quantitation limits were 0.02 μg·L-1 and 0.08 μg·L-1, respectively, which was demonstrated to be better than the methodologies currently reported in the literature. The accuracy values were between 96% and 104%. The precision intraday and interday values were 2.7% and 3.8%, respectively. The optimized methodology was applied to monitoring of changes in MDA levels between control and exposed to thermal stress conditions melon leaves samples. Important preliminary conclusions were obtained. Besides, a comparison between MDA levels in melon leaves quantified by the proposed method and the traditional thiobarbituric acid reactive species (TBARS) approach was undertaken. The MDA determination by TBARS could lead to unrealistic conclusions regarding the oxidative stress status in plants.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28203476 PMCID: PMC5288533 DOI: 10.1155/2017/4327954
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Figure 1Van Deemter curve for MDA. The conditions were as follows: UPLC C18 column; isocratic elution, mobile phase containing acetonitrile-water with 0.1% (v/v) formic acid; temperature 25°C; MDA concentration 100 μg L−1; injection volume 10 μL.
Figure 2Van't Hoff plot for MDA. The conditions were as follows: UPLC C18 column; isocratic elution, mobile phase containing acetonitrile-water with 0.1% (v/v) formic acid; flow rate 0.1 mL min−1; MDA concentration 100 μg L−1; injection volume 10 μL.
Figure 3MDA chromatogram obtained with a UPLC C18 column associated with (+)ESI-MS/MS after sample SPE treatment. The analyte was quantified using the selected ion monitoring (SIR) mode.
Figure 4MDA calibration curve. MDA concentrations tested between 10 and 1500 μg·L−1. Regression line: y = 2400 + 134x, with R2 = 0.9996.
Comparison of the analytical performance of the proposed methodology with others previously reported in the literature.
| Detection technique | Separation technology | Derivatization reagent (derivatization time) | Matrix | Sample clean-up | LOD ( | LOQ ( | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS/MS | UPLC (BEH C18) | — | Plant tissue | SPE (OASIS HLB) | 0.020 | 0.080 | This study |
| MS/MS | HPLC (Hypercarb porous-graphite) | — | Urine | SPE | 0.087 | 0.105 | [ |
| Plasma | Protein precipitation with acetonitrile | 0.031 | 0.039 | ||||
| Exhaled breath | SPE | 0.021 | 0.032 | ||||
| MS | HPLC (Hyperclone C18) | TBA (40 min) | Plasma | Hydrolysis with sodium hydroxide and protein precipitation with sulphuric acid | 62 | 206 | [ |
| MS/MS | HPLC (C18) | 4,2-trimethylammonio ethoxybenzenaminiumHalide or 4-APC (240 min) | Plasma | Protein precipitation with acetonitrile and on-line weak-cation exchange SPE (WCXE) | 0.036 | — | [ |
| MS/MS | HPLC (C18) | 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine or DNPH (70 min) | Urine | Automated SPE | 0.11 | 0.46 | [ |
| PDA | UHPLC (HSS T3 strength silica) | — | Urine | Microextraction by packed sorbent (eVols-MEPS) | 0.72 | 1.57 | [ |
| UV | HPLC (C18) | — | Serum | Protein precipitation with perchloric acid | 0.86 | — | [ |
| PDA | Rocket HPLC (C18) | TBA (30 min) | Plant tissue | Protein precipitation with metaphosphoric acid | 0.022 | — | [ |
Recovery study and analytical performance of the proposed SPE-UPLC-(+)ESI-MS/MS methodology for the MDA determination in melon leaves.
| MDA added ( | MDA found ( | Precision (RSD %) | Accuracy (% recovery) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 ( | Day 2 ( | Day 3 ( | Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Interday | Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | |
| 0 | 425 ± 11 | 414 ± 12 | 442 ± 11 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 3.3 | — | — | — |
| 200 | 631 ± 18 | 639 ± 19 | 680 ± 20 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 4.0 | 101 | 104 | 106 |
| 300 | 747 ± 21 | 707 ± 19 | 691 ± 17 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 4.0 | 103 | 99 | 93 |
| 500 | 869 ± 23 | 886 ± 24 | 942 ± 26 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 4.2 | 94 | 97 | 100 |
| 1000 | 1425 ± 35 | 1357 ± 33 | 1341 ± 33 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 3.7 | 100 | 96 | 93 |
Values are means ± standard deviation.
Comparison between MDA levels determined by the proposed UPLC-MS/MS method and the traditional TBARS method.
| Sample type | MDA level ( | |
|---|---|---|
| UPLC-MS/MS | TBARS | |
| Control | 1.10 ± 0.03 | 3.6 ± 0.1 |
| Stressed | 3.5 ± 0.1 | 4.7 ± 0.2 |
a1 and b1 letters represent statistically different MDA concentration levels (P = 0.0027, n = 6), while the letter a2 represents average MDA values that were not statistically different (P = 0.2087, n = 6).