Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 301

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Objective Set of Criteria for Optimization of Sample Preparation Procedures for Ultra-High Throughput Untargeted Blood Plasma Lipid Profiling by Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry

Sarafian, Magali H., Gaudin, Mathieu, Lewis, Matthew R., Martin, Francois-Pierre, Holmes, Elaine, Nicholson, Jeremy K., Dumas, Marc-Emmanuel·2014·Analytical Chemistry
DOI 10.1021/ac500317c
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Exploratory or untargeted ultra performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS) profiling offers an overview of the complex lipid species diversity present in blood plasma. Here, we evaluate and compare eight sample preparation protocols for optimized blood plasma lipid extraction and measurement by UPLC-MS lipid profiling, including four protein precipitation methods (i.e., methanol, acetonitrile, isopropanol, and isopropanol-acetonitrile) and four liquid-liquid extractions (i.e., methanol combined with chloroform, dichloromethane, and methyl-tert butyl ether and isopropanol with hexane). The eight methods were then benchmarked using a set of qualitative and quantitative criteria selected to warrant compliance with high-throughput analytical workflows: protein removal efficiency, selectivity, repeatability, and recovery efficiency of the sample preparation. We found that protein removal was more efficient by precipitation (99%) than extraction (95%). Additionally, isopropanol appeared to be the most straightforward and robust solvent (61.1% of features with coefficient of variation (CV) < 20%) while enabling a broad coverage and recovery of plasma lipid species. These results demonstrate that isopropanol precipitation is an excellent sample preparation procedure for high-throughput untargeted lipid profiling using UPLC-MS. Isopropanol precipitation is not limited to untargeted profiling and could also be of interest for targeted UPLC-MS/MS lipid analysis. Collectively, these data show that lipid profiling greatly benefits from an isopropanol precipitation in terms of simplicity, protein removal efficiency, repeatability, lipid recovery, and coverage.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ac500317c

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 301

Metadata

Authors
Sarafian, M. H., Gaudin, M., Lewis, M. R., Martin, F.-P., Holmes, E., Nicholson, J. K., & Dumas, M.-E.
Venue
Analytical Chemistry
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2014-06-02
Volume
86
Issue
12
Pages
5766-5774
ISSN
  • 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6882
DOI
10.1021/ac500317c
OpenAlex
W2079585822
Cited by
301
References
41
FWCI
4.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.