{"title":"比较不同的唾液样本提取方法和溶剂。","authors":"Lingli Fang, Qiming Zhai, Hua Zhang, Ping Ji, Chang Chen, Hongmei Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s11306-024-02105-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Changes in the categories and concentrations of salivary metabolites may be closely related to oral, intestinal or systemic diseases. To study salivary metabolites, the first analytical step is to extract them from saliva samples as much as possible, while reducing interferences to a minimum. Frequently used extraction methods are protein precipitation (PPT), liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and solid-phase extraction (SPE), with various organic solvents. The types and quantities of metabolites extracted with different methods may vary greatly, but few studies have systematically evaluated them.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to select the most suitable methods and solvents for the extraction of saliva according to different analytical targets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An untargeted metabolomics approach based on liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry was applied to obtain the raw data. The numbers of metabolites, repeatability of the data and intensities of mass spectrometry signals were used as evaluation criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PPT resulted in the highest coverage. Among the PPT solvents, acetonitrile displayed the best repeatability and the highest coverage, while acetone resulted in the best signal intensities for the extracted compounds. LLE with the mixture of chloroform and methanol was the most suitable for the extraction of small hydrophobic compounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PPT with acetonitrile or acetone was recommended for untargeted analysis, while LLE with the mixture of chloroform and methanol was recommended for small hydrophobic compounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":18506,"journal":{"name":"Metabolomics","volume":"20 2","pages":"38"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparisons of different extraction methods and solvents for saliva samples.\",\"authors\":\"Lingli Fang, Qiming Zhai, Hua Zhang, Ping Ji, Chang Chen, Hongmei Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11306-024-02105-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Changes in the categories and concentrations of salivary metabolites may be closely related to oral, intestinal or systemic diseases. To study salivary metabolites, the first analytical step is to extract them from saliva samples as much as possible, while reducing interferences to a minimum. Frequently used extraction methods are protein precipitation (PPT), liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and solid-phase extraction (SPE), with various organic solvents. The types and quantities of metabolites extracted with different methods may vary greatly, but few studies have systematically evaluated them.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to select the most suitable methods and solvents for the extraction of saliva according to different analytical targets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An untargeted metabolomics approach based on liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry was applied to obtain the raw data. The numbers of metabolites, repeatability of the data and intensities of mass spectrometry signals were used as evaluation criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PPT resulted in the highest coverage. Among the PPT solvents, acetonitrile displayed the best repeatability and the highest coverage, while acetone resulted in the best signal intensities for the extracted compounds. LLE with the mixture of chloroform and methanol was the most suitable for the extraction of small hydrophobic compounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PPT with acetonitrile or acetone was recommended for untargeted analysis, while LLE with the mixture of chloroform and methanol was recommended for small hydrophobic compounds.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metabolomics\",\"volume\":\"20 2\",\"pages\":\"38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metabolomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-024-02105-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metabolomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-024-02105-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
引言唾液代谢物种类和浓度的变化可能与口腔、肠道或全身疾病密切相关。要研究唾液代谢物,分析的第一步是尽可能从唾液样本中提取代谢物,同时将干扰降到最低。常用的提取方法有蛋白质沉淀法(PPT)、液液萃取法(LLE)和固相萃取法(SPE),并使用各种有机溶剂。不同方法提取的代谢物种类和数量可能有很大差异,但很少有研究对其进行系统评估:本研究旨在根据不同的分析目标选择最适合的唾液提取方法和溶剂:方法:采用基于液相色谱-质谱联用技术的非目标代谢组学方法获取原始数据。以代谢物的数量、数据的重复性和质谱信号的强度作为评价标准:结果:PPT 的覆盖率最高。在 PPT 溶剂中,乙腈的重复性最好,覆盖率最高,而丙酮提取的化合物信号强度最好。使用氯仿和甲醇混合物的 LLE 最适合萃取小分子疏水性化合物:结论:建议使用乙腈或丙酮的 PPT 进行非目标分析,而使用氯仿和甲醇混合物的 LLE 则适用于小的疏水性化合物。
Comparisons of different extraction methods and solvents for saliva samples.
Introduction: Changes in the categories and concentrations of salivary metabolites may be closely related to oral, intestinal or systemic diseases. To study salivary metabolites, the first analytical step is to extract them from saliva samples as much as possible, while reducing interferences to a minimum. Frequently used extraction methods are protein precipitation (PPT), liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and solid-phase extraction (SPE), with various organic solvents. The types and quantities of metabolites extracted with different methods may vary greatly, but few studies have systematically evaluated them.
Objectives: This study aimed to select the most suitable methods and solvents for the extraction of saliva according to different analytical targets.
Methods: An untargeted metabolomics approach based on liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry was applied to obtain the raw data. The numbers of metabolites, repeatability of the data and intensities of mass spectrometry signals were used as evaluation criteria.
Results: PPT resulted in the highest coverage. Among the PPT solvents, acetonitrile displayed the best repeatability and the highest coverage, while acetone resulted in the best signal intensities for the extracted compounds. LLE with the mixture of chloroform and methanol was the most suitable for the extraction of small hydrophobic compounds.
Conclusion: PPT with acetonitrile or acetone was recommended for untargeted analysis, while LLE with the mixture of chloroform and methanol was recommended for small hydrophobic compounds.
期刊介绍:
Metabolomics publishes current research regarding the development of technology platforms for metabolomics. This includes, but is not limited to:
metabolomic applications within man, including pre-clinical and clinical
pharmacometabolomics for precision medicine
metabolic profiling and fingerprinting
metabolite target analysis
metabolomic applications within animals, plants and microbes
transcriptomics and proteomics in systems biology
Metabolomics is an indispensable platform for researchers using new post-genomics approaches, to discover networks and interactions between metabolites, pharmaceuticals, SNPs, proteins and more. Its articles go beyond the genome and metabolome, by including original clinical study material together with big data from new emerging technologies.