| Literature DB >> 35052528 |
Jiandong Wu1, Anna Chernatynskaya1, Annalise Pfaff2, Huari Kou1, Nan Cen3, Nuran Ercal2, Honglan Shi2.
Abstract
Oxidative stress may contribute to the pathology of many diseases, and endogenous thiols, especially glutathione (GSH) and its metabolites, play essential roles in the maintenance of normal redox status. Understanding how these metabolites change in response to oxidative insult can provide key insights into potential methods of prevention and treatment. Most existing methodologies focus only on the GSH/GSH disulfide (GSSG) redox couple, but GSH regulation is highly complex and depends on several pathways with multiple redox-active sulfur-containing species. In order to more fully characterize thiol redox status in response to oxidative insult, a high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) method was developed to simultaneously determine seven sulfur-containing metabolites, generating a panel that systematically examines several pathways involved in thiol metabolism and oxidative stress responses. The sensitivity (LOQ as low as 0.01 ng/mL), accuracy (88-126% spike recovery), and precision (≤12% RSD) were comparable or superior to those of existing methods. Additionally, the method was used to compare the baseline thiol profiles and oxidative stress responses of cell lines derived from different tissues. The results revealed a previously unreported response to oxidative stress in lens epithelial (B3) cells, which may be exploited as a new therapeutic target for oxidative-stress-related ocular diseases. Further application of this method may uncover new pathways involved in oxidative-stress-related diseases and endogenous defense mechanisms.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC-MS/MS; biomarker; cancer cells; glutathione; lens epithelial cells; thiol
Year: 2021 PMID: 35052528 PMCID: PMC8773739 DOI: 10.3390/antiox11010024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1Analytes included in the “thiol profile” HPLC-MS/MS method described here and the pathways in which they participate.
HPLC-MS/MS method parameters and performance.
| Analyte | Ion Pairs | DP * | CE * | CXP * | LOQ * | Linear Range | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (m/z) | (V) | (V) | (V) | (ng/mL) | (ng/mL) | ||
| GSH | 433.2 → 304.1 | 46 | 20 | 20 | 0.01 | 0.01–500 | 0.9924 |
| GSSG | 613.2 → 355.2 | 116 | 29 | 24 | 5 | 5–500 | 0.9945 |
| Cys-Gly | 304.1 → 201.0 | 66 | 21 | 12 | 0.1 | 0.1–500 | 0.9992 |
| Glu-Cys | 376.1 → 247.1 | 71 | 21 | 12 | 0.05 | 0.05–500 | 0.9979 |
| Met | 150.2 → 103.8 | 41 | 15 | 8 | 0.1 | 0.1–500 | 0.9973 |
| Hcys | 261.1 → 55.8 | 51 | 41 | 8 | 0.05 | 0.05–500 | 0.9956 |
| Cys | 247.1 → 229.8 | 51 | 19 | 14 | 0.05 | 0.05–500 | 0.9926 |
* DP, declustering potential; CE, collision energy; CXP, collision cell exit potential; LOQ, limit of quantification (S/N >10).
Figure 2Extracted ion chromatograms of the standard mixture prepared at 200 ng/mL (left) and a representative sample (right). * The peak at 5.41 min in the Cys-Gly panel (grey) was contributed by GSH.
Spike recovery and relative standard deviation (RSD, n = 3).
| Analyte | Recovery (%) | RSD (%) | Recovery (%) | RSD (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spike level of 100 ng/mL | Spike level of 500 ng/mL | |||
| GSH | 115 | 5 | 103 | 1 |
| Spike level of 4 ng/mL | Spike level of 100 ng/mL | |||
| Cys-Gly | 97 | 9 | 105 | 4 |
| Glu-Cys | 95 | 3 | 103 | 2 |
| Met | 88 | 3 | 100 | 4 |
| Cys | 92 | 12 | 105 | 2 |
| GSSG | 126 | 7 | 124 | 4 |
| Hcys | 105 | 1 | 113 | 2 |
Figure 3Comparison of thiol profile in different cells. B3, human lens epithelial cells, n = 6; A549, human lung carcinoma cells, n = 6; MCF10A, human breast epithelial cells, n = 3; HN12, human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma line, n = 3. Values are reported as mean ± SD.
Figure 4Alteration of analytes in A549 cells after 2 h tBHP treatment (n = 6). The levels in treatment groups were normalized to those of the control group. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.001.
Figure 5Alteration of analytes in B3 cells after 0.5 mM tBHP treatment (n = 6). The concentrations in treatment groups were normalized to that of control group. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.001.