| Literature DB >> 30972471 |
Michaela Schwaiger-Haber1,2, Gerrit Hermann1,3, Yasin El Abiead1,4,5, Evelyn Rampler1,4,5, Stefanie Wernisch2, Kelli Sas2, Subramaniam Pennathur2,6, Gunda Koellensperger7,8,9.
Abstract
13C metabolite tracer and metabolic flux analyses require upfront experimental planning and validation tools. Here, we present a validation scheme including a comparison of different LC methods that allow for customization of analytical strategies for tracer studies with regard to the targeted metabolites. As the measurement of significant changes in labeling patterns depends on the spectral accuracy, we investigate this aspect comprehensively for high-resolution orbitrap mass spectrometry combined with reversed-phase chromatography, hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography, or anion-exchange chromatography. Moreover, we propose a quality control protocol based on (1) a metabolite containing selenium to assess the instrument performance and on (2) in vivo synthesized isotopically enriched Pichia pastoris to validate the accuracy of carbon isotopologue distributions (CIDs), in this case considering each isotopologue of a targeted metabolite panel. Finally, validation involved a thorough assessment of procedural blanks and matrix interferences. We compared the analytical figures of merit regarding CID determination for over 40 metabolites between the three methods. Excellent precisions of less than 1% and trueness bias as small as 0.01-1% were found for the majority of compounds, whereas the CID determination of a small fraction was affected by contaminants. For most compounds, changes of labeling pattern as low as 1% could be measured. Graphical abstract.Entities:
Keywords: 13C labeling; Carbon isotopologue distribution; Mass spectrometry; Metabolomics; Stable isotope labeling experiments; Stable isotope tracer experiments
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30972471 PMCID: PMC6526147 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-019-01773-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem ISSN: 1618-2642 Impact factor: 4.142
Fig. 1Proposed validation scheme addressing uncertainty and accuracy in 13C tracer studies. A selenomethionine (Se-Met) standard was used to evaluate the instrument performance regarding spectral accuracy. An in-house reference material provides metabolite- and isotopologue-specific method validation and procedural blanks/an unlabeled sample can reveal possible interferences from endogenous contamination
Fig. 2Isotopologue distribution of a 10 μM standard of selenomethionine (Se-Met) measured by flow injection analysis (FIA) as well as reversed-phase (HSS-T3) and HILIC (ZIC pHILIC) separation in both positive and negative electrospray ionization with resolutions of 120 and 30 K on a Q Exactive HF orbitrap mass spectrometer in full MS mode. Black: theoretical distribution of Se-Met considering the six highest abundance selenium isotopes. The trueness bias (difference between theoretical and measured ID) was less than 1% for all isotopes at both polarities and resolutions. The error bars denote the standard deviation of the technical replicates (N = 4) which was less than 0.2% for investigated isotopes
Isotopologue distributions (ID) of selenomethionine measured by flow injection analysis (FIA) in positive and negative ESI mode with 120 and 30 K resolution on a Q Exactive HF orbitrap mass spectrometer (N = 4) (Meas. ID) with their trueness bias in comparison to the theoretical pattern (Theor. ID) of Se-Met and precision (Prec.)
| Isotopologue | Theor. ID | Meas. ID | Trueness bias | Prec. | Meas. ID | Trueness bias | Prec. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 120 K | FIA pos 120 K | FIA neg 120 K | |||||
| 74Se-Met | 0.9 | 0.8 | −0.1 | 0.01 | 0.7 | −0.2 | 0.02 |
| 76Se-Met | 9.2 | 9.3 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 9.0 | −0.2 | 0.10 |
| 77Se-Met | 7.6 | 7.5 | −0.1 | 0.02 | 7.2 | −0.4 | 0.07 |
| 78Se-Met | 23.6 | 23.8 | 0.1a | 0.05 | 23.9 | 0.2a | 0.18 |
| 80Se-Met | 49.8 | 49.7 | −0.1 | 0.06 | 50.4 | 0.6 | 0.08 |
| 82Se-Met | 8.9 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 0.02 | 8.7 | −0.1a | 0.09 |
| 30 K | FIA pos 30 K | FIA neg 30 K | |||||
| 74Se-Met | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.1a | 0.01 | 0.8 | −0.1 | 0.01 |
| 76Se-Met | 9.1 | 9.4 | 0.3 | 0.01 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.03 |
| 77Se-Met | 8.0 | 7.8 | −0.2 | 0.02 | 7.9 | −0.1 | 0.02 |
| 78Se-Met | 23.8 | 23.5 | −0.3 | 0.04 | 23.4 | −0.4 | 0.05 |
| 80Se-Met | 49.3 | 49.5 | 0.3a | 0.03 | 50.0 | 0.8a | 0.12 |
| 82Se-Met | 9.0 | 8.9 | −0.1 | 0.01 | 8.8 | −0.2 | 0.06 |
Values are in percent (%) of the sum (100%) of all six isotopologues (for theoretical and measured ID). Trueness bias as difference between theoretical and measured value and precision as standard deviation of technical replicates are also given in percent (%). Trueness bias = Isotopologue fractionmeas. − Isotopologue fractiontheor
aDeviations between the difference of theoretical ID and measured ID and the trueness bias are due to rounding
Predicted CIDs (CIDpred) and measured CIDs (CIDmeas) with trueness bias and precision (N = 4) of NAD+ isotopologues in the undiluted labeled in-house reference material measured via reversed-phase chromatography (HSS T3 column) in positive ESI mode at two resolutions in comparison to the predicted CIDs
| Isotopologue | CIDpred | 120 K | 30 K | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIDmeas | Trueness bias | Precision | CIDmeas | Trueness bias | Precision | ||
| NAD+_M0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 |
| NAD+_M1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 |
| NAD+_M2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 |
| NAD+_M3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | −0.1 | 0.00 | 0.0 | −0.1 | 0.00 |
| NAD+_M4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | −0.1 | 0.04 | 0.2 | −0.1 | 0.02 |
| NAD+_M5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.04 | 0.9 | −0.2 | 0.02 |
| NAD+_M6 | 2.7 | 2.6 | −0.1 | 0.04 | 2.5 | −0.2 | 0.08 |
| NAD+_M7 | 5.7 | 5.6 | −0.2 | 0.13 | 5.5 | −0.2 | 0.04 |
| NAD+_M8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 0.0 | 0.15 | 9.7 | −0.3 | 0.04 |
| NAD+_M9 | 14.2 | 14.1 | −0.1 | 0.12 | 13.9 | −0.4 | 0.10 |
| NAD+_M10 | 16.9 | 16.9 | 0.0 | 0.20 | 16.6 | −0.3 | 0.04 |
| NAD+_M11 | 16.7 | 16.7 | −0.1 | 0.02 | 16.8 | 0.0 | 0.10 |
| NAD+_M12 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 0.1 | 0.11 | 14.1 | 0.3 | 0.09 |
| NAD+_M13 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 10.0 | 0.5 | 0.09 |
| NAD+_M14 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 0.2 | 0.14 | 5.8 | 0.5 | 0.04 |
| NAD+_M15 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 0.1 | 0.08 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 0.03 |
| NAD+_M16 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.03 |
| NAD+_M17 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.01 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.04 |
| NAD+_M18 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.02 | 0.0 | −0.1 | 0.00 |
| NAD+_M19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 |
| NAD+_M20 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 |
| NAD+_M21 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 |
All values are given in percent (%)
Predicted CIDs with predicted error from NMR measurements and measured CIDs with precision (N = 4; for IC, N = 3) of alpha-ketoglutarate (AKG), citrate (Cit), malate (Mal), and succinate (Suc) in the undiluted labeled in-house reference material measured via reversed-phase chromatography (HSS T3), HILIC, and IC in negative ESI mode at 120 K resolution
| Predicted | HSS T3 | pHILIC | IC | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CID | Error | CID | Precision | CID | Precision | CID | Precision | ||
| AKG | M0 | 3.202 | 0.0028 | 3.61 | 0.09 | 3.64 | 0.04 | 3.37 | 0.13 |
| M1 | 15.855 | 0.0084 | 15.89 | 0.23 | 16.12 | 0.09 | 15.32 | 0.04 | |
| M2 | 31.401 | 0.0054 | 31.85 | 0.31 | 31.46 | 0.15 | 32.36 | 0.11 | |
| M3 | 31.096 | 0.0057 | 31.15 | 0.50 | 30.94 | 0.15 | 31.86 | 0.11 | |
| M4 | 15.396 | 0.0083 | 14.83 | 0.12 | 15.07 | 0.15 | 14.67 | 0.09 | |
| M5 | 3.049 | 0.0027 | 2.68 | 0.09 | 2.77 | 0.04 | 2.42 | 0.03 | |
| Cit | M0 | 1.609 | 0.0017 | 2.85 | 0.04 | NDa | NDa | 2.73 | 0.01 |
| M1 | 9.560 | 0.0067 | 9.38 | 0.12 | 10.78 | 0.13 | 9.38 | 0.02 | |
| M2 | 23.666 | 0.0083 | 23.63 | 0.09 | 23.80 | 0.26 | 23.48 | 0.03 | |
| M3 | 31.248 | 0.0002 | 31.06 | 0.02 | 32.32 | 0.15 | 31.28 | 0.02 | |
| M4 | 23.208 | 0.0084 | 23.14 | 0.21 | 23.46 | 0.08 | 23.27 | 0.02 | |
| M5 | 9.193 | 0.0066 | 8.79 | 0.05 | 8.57 | 0.05 | 8.90 | 0.02 | |
| M6 | 1.517 | 0.0016 | 1.15 | 0.02 | 1.06 | 0.18 | 0.97 | 0.02 | |
| Mal | M0 | 6.373 | 0.0045 | 7.50 | 0.11 | 7.74 | 0.18 | 7.37 | 0.08 |
| M1 | 25.245 | 0.0089 | 24.41 | 0.14 | 24.65 | 0.32 | 24.72 | 0.02 | |
| M2 | 37.498 | 0.0001 | 37.41 | 0.15 | 37.14 | 0.15 | 37.05 | 0.03 | |
| M3 | 24.755 | 0.0089 | 24.57 | 0.14 | 24.62 | 0.11 | 24.78 | 0.09 | |
| M4 | 6.129 | 0.0044 | 6.12 | 0.06 | 5.85 | 0.10 | 6.08 | 0.03 | |
| Suc | M0 | 6.373 | 0.0045 | 28.94* | 1.02 | 31.87* | 0.86 | 29.94* | 0.51 |
| M1 | 25.245 | 0.0089 | 19.11 | 1.20 | 18.51 | 0.18 | 19.28 | 0.16 | |
| M2 | 37.498 | 0.0001 | 26.84 | 0.63 | 26.73 | 0.52 | 27.84 | 0.27 | |
| M3 | 24.755 | 0.0089 | 18.63 | 0.61 | 17.24 | 0.95 | 17.69 | 0.04 | |
| M4 | 6.129 | 0.0044 | 6.47 | 0.12 | 5.65 | 0.34 | 5.25 | 0.11 | |
*Succinate measurements indicate the presence of an unlabeled contaminant. All values are given in percent (%)
aND indicates that the peak could not be integrated because of an interfering peak