Michel M, Salvador C, Wiedemair V, Adam MG, Laser KT, Dubowy KO, Entenmann A, Karall D, Geiger R, Zlamy M, Scholl-Bürgi S.
Metabolomics. 2020 Dec 15;16(12):128. doi: 10.1007/s11306-020-01741-8.
PMID: 33319318 Free PMC article.
Take Home Points:
- Precision and accuracy were acceptable for photometry and UHPLC (ultra-high-performance liquid)-tandem mass spectrometry in the analysis of serum amino acid concentrations.
- Although amino acid concentrations differed significantly between photometry and tandem mass spectrometry both methods showed similar patterns of serum amino acid concentrations in patients and controls.
Commentary from Dr. Inga Voges (Kiel, Germany), chief section editor of Pediatric & Fetal Cardiology Journal Watch: Serum amino acids are associated with oxidative stress and inflammation in Fontan patients. In this method comparison study, the authors compared photometry with UHPLC (ultra-high-performance liquid)-tandem mass spectrometry to analyze serum amino acids in Fontan patients and healthy controls.
20 Fontan patients with a double inlet left ventricle and their matched controls were included. Overall, 24 amino acids and their serum concentrations were compared. Precision and accuracy were acceptable for both methods. Concentrations for many amino acids differed significantly between the two methods in both Fontan patients and controls (Figure 1). However, the amino acid concentration pattern was similar between the two methods (Figure 1).
Bland-Altman plots are shown (Figure 2 and 3) and demonstrated a negative trend for the differences that is proportional to the magnitude of the measurement. As explained by the authors, this negative trend indicates that tandem mass spectrometry tends to yield lower concentration than photometry if analyte concentrations are low. If concentrations are high, tandem mass spectrometry tends to yield higher amino acid concentrations than photometry.
The authors conclude that both methods are suitable for pattern recognition of serum amino acid concentrations.
Figures 2 and 3