| Literature DB >> 30186850 |
Lianguo Chen1, Bin Zhang2, Jinlai Liu1, Zhehua Fan2, Ziwei Weng2, Peiwu Geng3, Xianqin Wang2, Guanyang Lin4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The present study aimed to develop a simple and sensitive method for quantitative determination of monocrotaline (MCT) in mouse blood employing ultra-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-ESI/MS/MS) using rhynchophylline as an internal standard.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30186850 PMCID: PMC6110008 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1578643
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Chemical structures of (a) monocrotaline and (b) rhynchophylline.
Figure 3The MS/MS chromatograms of MCT and IS. (a) A blank extract, (b) a blank extract with MCT and IS, and (c) an authentic sample spiked with IS at 0.5 h after intravenous administration.
The precision, accuracy, recovery, and matrix effect of MCT in mouse blood (n = 6).
| Concentration (ng/mL) | Precision (RSD%) | Accuracy (%) | Found (ng/mL) | Matrix effect (%) | Recovery (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intra-day | Inter-day | Intra-day | Inter-day | Intra-day | Inter-day | |||
| 3 | 9.6 | 12.6 | 106.6 | 96.6 | 3.2±0.3 | 2.9 ±0.4 | 89.0±7.6 | 81.9 ±6.4 |
| 180 | 11.1 | 12.0 | 99.4 | 104.4 | 178.9±19.9 | 187.9 ±22.6 | 94.3±4.5 | 77.2±3.6 |
| 1800 | 7.3 | 8.2 | 96.2 | 98.4 | 1731.6±126.4 | 1771.2 ±145.2 | 92.2 ±4.1 | 75.0±4.6 |
Summary of stability of MCT under various storage conditions (n = 3).
| Concentration (ng/mL) | Auto sampler ambient | Ambient 12 h | -20°C 30 d | Freeze-thaw | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Found (ng/mL) | Accuracy (%) | RSD (%) | Found (ng/mL) | Accuracy (%) | RSD (%) | Found (ng/mL) | Accuracy (%) | RSD (%) | Found (ng/mL) | Accuracy (%) | RSD (%) | |
| 3 | 2.9± 0.1 | 96.6 | 3.5 | 3.1 ±0.2 | 102.9 | 7.6 | 2.8±0.4 | 93.6 | 13.8 | 2.7 ±0.3 | 88.9 | 13.0 |
| 180 | 183.4±9.7 | 101.9 | 5.3 | 190.8±9.2 | 106.0 | 4.8 | 177.1±20.4 | 98.4 | 11.5 | 162.2 ±8.3 | 90.1 | 5.1 |
| 1800 | 1879.2± 54.5 | 104.4 | 2.9 | 1657.8±89.5 | 92.1 | 5.4 | 1936.8 ±108.5 | 107.6 | 5.6 | 1918.8±188.0 | 106.6 | 9.8 |
Figure 4Mean blood concentration of MCT after sublingual intravenous administration at the dose of 3 mg/kg in six mice.
Figure 5Mean blood concentration of MCT after gavage of 15 mg/kg in six mice.
The main pharmacokinetic parameters of MCT after sublingual intravenous and intragastric administration (n=6).
| Parameters | Unit | iv (3 mg/kg) | po (15 mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AUC(0-t) | ng/mL | 2991.9 ±789.1 | 13215.0±5384.2 |
| AUC(0- | ng/mL | 3225.9 ±941.9 | 13259.7±5403.8 |
| MRT(0-t) | H | 2.6 ±1.2 | 1.6 ±0.7 |
| MRT(0- | h | 4.5 ±3.3 | 1.6 ±0.7 |
| t1/2z | h | 7.1 ±3.7 | 2.6 ±1.5 |
| tmax | h | — | 0.5±0.0 |
| CLz/F | L/h/kg | 1.0 ±0.4 | 1.3 ±0.5 |
| Vz/F | L/kg | 9.3 ±3.6 | 4.5±3.2 |
| Cmax | ng/mL | 2553.8 ±340.2 | 9886.5 ±771.3 |
Figure 2The product ion spectrum of (a) MCT and (b) IS.