School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, University of Lausanne, CMU - Rue Michel Servet 1, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland.
Swiss Laboratory for Doping Analyses, University Center of Legal Medicine Lausanne-Geneva, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, University of Lausanne, Chemin des Croisettes 22, 1066 Epalinges, Switzerland.
J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2018 Mar 15;1079:51-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2018.01.037. Epub 2018 Feb 7.
Matrix effects (ME) is acknowledged as being one of the major drawbacks of quantitative bioanalytical methods, involving the use of liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (LC-MS). In the present study, the incidence of ME in SFC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS in the positive mode electrospray ionization (ESI+) was systematically compared for the analysis of urine and plasma samples using two representative sets of 40 doping agents and 38 pharmaceutical compounds, respectively. Three different SFC stationary phase chemistries were employed, to highlight the importance of the column in terms of selectivity. Biological samples were prepared using two different sample treatments, including a non-selective sample clean-up procedure (dilute and shoot (DS) and protein precipitation (PP) for urine and plasma samples, respectively) and a selective sample preparation, namely solid phase extraction (SPE) for both matrices. The lower susceptibility to ME in SFC vs. reversed phase LC (RPLC) was verified in all the experiments performed on urine, and especially when a simple DS procedure was applied. Also, with the latter, the performance strongly varied according to the selected SFC stationary phase, whereas the results were quite similar with the three SFC columns, in the case of SPE clean-up. The same trend was observed with plasma samples. Indeed, with the PP procedure, the occurrence of ME was different on the three SFC columns, and only the 2-picolylamine stationary phase chemistry displayed lower incidence of ME compared to LC-MS/MS. On the contrary, when a SPE clean-up was carried out, the results were similar to the urine samples, with higher performance of SFC vs. LC and limited discrepancies between the three SFC columns. The type of ME observed in LC-MS/MS was generally a signal enhancement and an ion suppression for urine and plasma samples, respectively. In the case of SFC-MS/MS, the type of ME randomly varied according to the analyzed matrix, selected column and sample treatment.
基质效应(ME)被认为是定量生物分析方法的主要缺点之一,涉及使用液相色谱-质谱联用(LC-MS)。在本研究中,系统地比较了正离子模式电喷雾(ESI+)下 SFC-MS/MS 和 LC-MS/MS 中 ME 的发生率,分别用于分析尿液和血浆样品,使用两组分别由 40 种兴奋剂和 38 种药物化合物组成的代表性药物。使用三种不同的 SFC 固定相化学,突出了柱在选择性方面的重要性。生物样品分别采用两种不同的样品处理方法制备,包括非选择性样品净化程序(尿液的稀释进样(DS)和蛋白沉淀(PP)和血浆样品)和选择性样品制备,即两种基质的固相萃取(SPE)。在所有在尿液上进行的实验中都验证了 SFC 对 ME 的敏感性低于反相 LC(RPLC),尤其是当应用简单的 DS 程序时。此外,在后一种情况下,性能根据所选 SFC 固定相而强烈变化,而在 SPE 净化的情况下,结果与三种 SFC 柱非常相似。在血浆样品中也观察到了相同的趋势。实际上,在使用 PP 程序时,三种 SFC 柱上 ME 的发生情况不同,只有 2-吡啶基乙胺固定相化学显示出与 LC-MS/MS 相比 ME 发生率较低。相反,当进行 SPE 净化时,结果与尿液样品相似,SFC 比 LC 的性能更高,并且三种 SFC 柱之间的差异有限。在 LC-MS/MS 中观察到的 ME 类型通常是尿液和血浆样品的信号增强和离子抑制。在 SFC-MS/MS 的情况下,ME 的类型根据分析的基质、所选柱和样品处理而随机变化。