Advertisement

Internal Standards for Quantitative LC-MS Bioanalysis

  • Aimin TanEmail author
  • Nadine Boudreau
  • Ann Lévesque
Chapter

Abstract

Internal standards play critical roles in ensuring the accuracy of reported concentrations in LC-MS bioanalysis. How do you find an appropriate internal standard so that analyte losses and experimental variations during sample preparation, chromatographic separation, and mass spectrometric detection could be corrected? How is the concentration of an internal standard determined? Should internal standard responses be monitored during the analysis of incurred samples? What are the main causes for internal standard response variations? How do they impact the quantitation? Why are stable isotope labeled internal standards preferred? And yet one should still have an open-mind in their usage for the analysis of incurred samples. All these questions are addressed in this chapter supported by theoretical considerations and practical examples.

Keywords

Quality Control Sample Mass Spectrometric Detection Deuterium Atom Deuterated Internal Standard Stable Isotope Label Internal Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Wen Jin in the University of Guelph for her reviewing of the draft manuscript and valuable comments. In addition, Tan would like to thank his family (Cailin and Joyce) for their support during the preparation of this book chapter.

References

  1. 1.
    Eeckhaut AV, Lanckmans K, Sarre S, Smolders I, Michotte Y (2009) Validation of bioanalytical LC-MS/MS assays: evaluation of matrix effects. J Chromatogr B 877:2198–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuadros-Rodríguez L, Bagur-González MG, Sánchez-Viñas M, González-Casado A, Gómez-Sáez AM (2007) Principles of analytical calibration/quantification for the separation sciences. J Chromatogr A 1158:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nilsson LB, Eklund G (2007) Direct quantification in bioanalytical LC-MS/MS using internal calibration via analyte/stable isotope ratio. J Pharm Biomed Anal 43:1094–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doig MV (2000) Applications of mass spectrometry: quantitative mass spectrometry. In: Venn RF (ed) Principles and practice of bioanalysis. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tan A, Hussain S, Vallée F (2009) Evaporation-free extraction and application in high-throughput bioanalysis by LC-MS/MS. LCGC North America 27:414–427Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yamashita K, Okuyama M, Watanabe Y, Honma S, Kobayashi S, Numazawa M (2007) Highly sensitive determination of estrone and estradiol in human serum by liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Steroids 72:819–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore LJ, Machlan LA (1972) High accuracy determination of calcium in blood serum by isotope dilution mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 44:2291–2296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stokvis E, Rosing H, Beijnen JH (2005) Stable isotopically labeled internal standards in quantitative bioanalysis using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry: necessity or not? Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 19:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Viswanathan CT, Bansal S, Booth B, DeStefano AJ, Rose MJ, Sailstad J, Shah VP, Skelly JP, Swann PG, Weiner R (2007) Workshop/conference report ― quantitative bioanalytical methods validation and implementation: best practices for chromatographic and ligand binding assays. AAPS J 9:E30–E42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li W, Li YH, Li AC, Zhou S, Naidong W (2005) Simultaneous determination of norethindrone and ethinyl estradiol in human plasma by high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry – experiences on developing a highly selective method using derivatization reagent for enhancing sensitivity. J Chromatogr B 825:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kitamura R, Matsuoka K, Matsushima E, Kawaguchi Y (2001) Improvement in precision of the liquid chromatographic-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometric analysis of 3’-C-ethynylcytidine in rat plasma. J Chromatogr B 754:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shi G (2003) Application of co-eluting structural analog internal standards for expanded linear dynamic range in liquid chromatography/electrospray mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 17:202–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bakhtiar R, Majumdar TK (2007) Tracking problems and possible solutions in the quantitative determination of small molecule drugs and metabolites in biological fluids using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 55:227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sojo LE, Lum G, Chee P (2003) Internal standard signal suppression by co-eluting analyte in isotope dilution LC-ESI-MS. Analyst 128:51–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ansermot N, Rudaz S, Brawand-Amey M, Fleury-Souverain S, Veuthey JL, Eap CB (2009) Validation and long-term evaluation of a modified on-line chiral analytical method for therapeutic drug monitoring of (R, S)-methadone in clinical samples. J Chromatogr B 877:2301–2307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ANVISA (2003) Guide for validation of analytical and bioanalytical methods. Resolution RE no. 899, 23 May 2003 Brazilian Sanitary Surveillance Agency, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bergeron A, Furtado M, Garofolo F (2009) Importance of using highly pure internal standards for successful liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric bioanalytical assays. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 23:1287–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liang HR, Foltz RL, Meng M, Bennett P (2003) Ionization enhancement in atmospheric pressure chemical ionization and suppression in electrospray ionization between target drugs and stable-isotope-labeled internal standards in quantitative liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 17:2815–2821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wieling J (2002) LC-MS-MS experiences with internal standards. Chromatographia 55:S107–S113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Viel F, Santos N, Tan A, Laforest L, Boudreau N, Lévesque A, Musuku A, Massé R (2010) Simultaneous quantitation of free and liposomal drug forms in human serum by evaporation-free extraction. Presented at 58th ASMS conference on mass spectrometry and allied topics, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 23-27 MayGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee JW, Petersen ME, Lin P, Dressler D, Bekersky I (2001) Quantitation of free and total amphotericin B in human biologic matrices by a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method. Ther Drug Monit 23:268–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Choi BK, Gusev AI, Hercules DM (1999) Postcolumn introduction of an internal standard for quantitative LC-MS analysis. Anal Chem 71:4107–4110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alder L, Lüderitz S, Lindtner K, Stan HJ (2004) The ECHO technique-the more effective way of data evaluation in liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis. J Chromatogr A 1058:67–79Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zrostlíková J, Hajšlová J, Poustka J, Begany P (2002) Alternative calibration approaches to compensate the effect of co-extracted matrix components in liquid chromatography-­electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry analysis of pesticide residues in plant ­materials. J Chromatogr A 973:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fu I, Woolf EJ, Matuszewski BK (1998) Effect of the sample matrix on the determination of indinavir in human urine by HPLC with turbo ion spray tandem mass spectrometric detection. J Pharm Biomed Anal 18:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jemal M, Schuster A, Whigan DB (2003) Liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry methods for quantitation of mevalonic acid in human plasma and urine: method validation, ­demonstration of using a surrogate analyte, and demonstration of unacceptable matrix effect in spite of use of a stable isotope analog internal standard. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 17:1723–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kato K, Jingu S, Ogawa N, Higuchi S (2000) Development and validation of a liquid chromatographic-tandem mass spectrometric method for the determination of pibutidine in human urine. J Chromatogr B 740:187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lanckmans K, Sarre S, Smolders I, Michotte Y (2007) Use of a structural analogue versus a stable isotope labeled internal standard for the quantification of angiotensin IV in rat brain dialysates using nano-liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 21:1187–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Halloran S, Ilett KF (2008) Evaluation of a deuterium-labeled internal standard for the measurement of sirolimus by high-throughput HPLC electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 54:1386–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taylor PJ, Brown SR, Cooper DP, Salm P, Morris MR, Pillans PI, Lynch SV (2005) Evaluation of 3 internal standards for the measurement of cyclosporine by HPLC-mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 51:1890–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Iyer SS, Zhang ZP, Kellogg GE, Karnes HT (2004) Evaluation of deuterium isotope effects in normal-phase LC-MS-MS separations using a molecular modeling approach. J Chromatogr Sci 42:383–387Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wade D (1999) Deuterium isotope effects on noncovalent interactions between molecules. Chem Biol Interact 117:191–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kato K, Jingu S, Ogawa N, Higuchi S (2000) Determination of pibutidine metabolites in human plasma by LC-MS/MS. J Pharm Biomed Anal 24:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lindegardh N, Annerberg A, White NJ, Day NPJ (2008) Development and validation of a liquid chromatographic-tandem mass spectrometric method for determination of piperaquine in plasma: stable isotope labeled internal standard does not always compensate for matrix effects. J Chromatogr B 862:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang S, Cyronak M, Yang E (2007) Does a stable isotopically labeled internal standard always correct analyte response? a matrix effect study on a LC/MS/MS method for the determination of carvedilol enantiomers in human plasma. J Pharm Biomed Anal 43:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tan A, Hussain S, Musuku A, Massé R (2009) Internal standard response variations during incurred sample analysis by LC-MS/MS: case by case trouble-shooting. J Chromatogr B 877:3201–3209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chavez-Eng CM, Constanzer ML, Matuszewski BK (2002) High-performance liquid chromatographic-tandem mass spectrometric evaluation and determination of stable isotope labeled analogs of rofecoxib in human plasma samples from oral bioavailability studies. J Chromatogr B 767:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Savard C, Pelletier N, Boudreau N, Lachance S, Lévesque A, Massé R (2010) Relative instability of deuterated internal standard under different pH conditions and according to deuterium atoms location. Presented at 58th ASMS conference on mass spectrometry and allied topics, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 23–27 MayGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kloepfer A, Quintana JB, Reemtsma T (2005) Operational options to reduce matrix effects in liquid chromatography ― electrospay ionization-mass spectrometry analysis of aqueous environmental samples. J Chromatogr A 1067:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mei H, Hsieh Y, Nardo C, Xu X, Wang S, Ng K, Korfmacher WA (2003) Investigation of matrix effects in bioanalytical high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric assays: application to drug discovery. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 17:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hussain S, Patel H, Tan A (2009) Automated liquid-liquid extraction method for high-throughput analysis of rosuvastatin in human EDTA K2 plasma by LC-MS/MS. Bioanalysis 1:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tan A, Montminy V, Gagné S, Musuku A, Massé R (2009) Trouble-shooting of least-expected causes in bioanalytical method development and application. Presented at 2009 AAPS annual meeting and exposition, Los Angeles, California, USA, 8–12 NovGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Napoli KL (2006) Organic solvents compromise performance of internal standard (ascomycin) in proficiency tesing of mass spectrometry-based assay for tacrolimus. Clin Chem 52:765–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BioPharma Services, Inc.TorontoCanada
  2. 2.PharmaNet Canada, Inc.QuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations