A novel, high throughput, and low-cost method for the detection of 40 amines relevant to inborn errors of metabolism, in under 60 minutes, using reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography

Chemicals and columns

The Infinity Lab Poroshell 120, 2.7 μm C18 analytical column and the corresponding guard column, borate buffer and OPA reagent were purchased from Agilent Technologies (Santa Clara, CA). HPLC grade acetonitrile, methanol, and water were purchased from VWR International (Radnor, PA). Individual amino acids and D-α-aminobutyric acid (AABA), the internal standard, and all other chemicals were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). Argon gas was purchased from Roberts Oxygen Co (Rockville, MD).

10 mM stocks of the individual amino acids were prepared separately and stored at -80 °C until use. To check linearity and reproducibility, concentrations from 0 to 2500 μM were made by serial dilutions. Preparations were thawed or prepared fresh on the day of analysis, except for the 4 °C storage variability test, termed the delayed sample analysis variability test, which was conducted with the same sample over three days. Each amino group containing metabolite was run independently and in aggregate to both resolve co-migration and to verify retention time.

Equipment

The 1290 Infinity II LC System was purchased from Agilent Technologies (Santa Clara, CA), with the addition of a 40 μL syringe and sample loop for the HPLC system. The Centrifuge 5417c was purchased from Eppendorf (Hamburg, Germany). The vortex mixer was purchased from BioExpress (Kaysville, UT). The 3k centrifuge filters were purchased from VWR international (Radnor, PA).

Chromatographic conditions

Derivatization and injection are as described in our prior paper.(13) A binary mobile phase consisting of solution A, 20 mM sodium phosphate (dibasic), 20 mM sodium borate, and 5 mM sodium azide, pH adjusted to 7.2, and solution B, a mixture of 45% acetonitrile, 45% methanol, and 10% water were used. Programming for the chromatographic run starts with 98% of solvent A, 2% solvent B and using multiple isocratic stepwise increases (Table 1) over a 41 minute time course reduces A to 40% and B to 60%. This is termed the Isocratic Elution Phase. A final column elution step using 80% solution B and 20% water, solution C is then run over 4 minutes. This is termed the Carryover Reduction Phase. Finally, the column was set back to 98% solvent A and 2% solvent B to re-equilibrate over 4 min. This is termed the Re-equilibration phase. The total run time is 53 minutes.

The column temperature was held constant at 34 °C while the sample tray was maintained at 4 °C. UV detection was performed at 338 nm.

Concentration Curve

A low concentration curve (0, 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 100, 500, 1000, 1500, and 2500 μM) and high concentration curve (0, 5, 15, 20, 30, 40, 100, 150, 200, 500, 1000, 1500, and 2500 μM) were used to assess coverage across both normal and abnormal concentrations. These standard curves, conducted in triplicate, were based on published reference ranges and were used to evaluate the analytical measurement range.(14)

Method Validation

Table 2 reports the methodology validation characteristics for each compound. All metrics were conducted in triplicate. Baseline noise was calculated on a per compound basis by assessing the baseline signal intensities at the expected retention time for the 0 μM time point, averaged, and calculated based on the representative concentration for the analyte. The limit of detection (LoD) for each compound was calculated based on the agreed upon International Committee on Harmonization and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute formula, LoD = 3.3*S/s.(15,16) Where S is the variation of the background noise and s is the slope of the concentration curve for that compound. Limit of quantitation (LoQ) was calculated based on a 10:1 ratio as compared to the LoD. The carryover was determined by running a blank sample, after each 2500 μM sample in the concentration curves and assessing for signal intensity at the relevant retention time. Intra-assay variability was assessed via assay of the same sample during the same sequence as subsequent runs. Inter-assay variability was assessed via separate assays as different run sequences. To additionally interrogate sample stability during a large sample run, a delayed sample analysis variability test, where samples are left in the HPLC sample tray at 4 °C for an extended period of time, a single sample was left in the HPLC sample tray at 4 °C for a full 48 hours and assessed initially and then at 24 hour intervals, the “4 °C Storage Variability” in Table 2.

Biologic Samples

Biologic samples as plasma or whole blood were obtained from healthy patients and those with different IEMs and either processed immediately or stored at -80°C until use. Samples were processed as previously described.(13) Patient and healthy participants provided informed consent under the study protocol (CN PRO0004911). Samples were processed and analyzed in a blinded fashion, without knowing the underlying disease status prior to analysis.

Ideal Chromatographic Conditions (Table 1, Figure 1)

Chromatographic conditions for optimal separation with minimal tailing were determined by preparing and injecting amino acids independently and in aggregate to resolve co-migration. Adjusting either the concentration of the mobile phase and/or the column temperature were the conditions found to have greatest effect on separation. Column temperature affected the entire chromatography spectra and was less sensitive for specific amino acid resolution than variation in mobile phase solutions but the column temperature for optimal baseline separation was determined to be 34°C. Optimal chromatographic mobile phase adjustments were found to display better resolution using isocratic stepwise changes for resolution rather than using a constant or variable gradient elution chromatographic condition. The vast majority of compounds elute during these isocratic holds rather than during the gradient increases between the isocratic holds (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Chromatograph Showing Separation of Amine Standards.

All metabolites were run at 100μM. Unlabeled peaks are not unique to any particular metabolite when metabolites are run separately. Overlaid on the chromatograph is the buffer gradient changes.

Unlabeled peaks are non-specific peaks that are not unique to any particular amine and instead are likely due to the derivative agent, OPA, when seen in the standards.

We found that carryover of samples was minimized by the addition of a Carryover Reduction Phase to the chromatographic conditions. Specifically, carryover was maximally minimized with a mixture of 80% of solution B with 20% water. In order to reduce variation in analyte retention time, a Re-Equilibration Phase was added to the end of the run, prior to injection of the next sample. Four minutes was found to be the minimal amount of time necessary to allow for reequilibration.

Concentration curves using both absolute metabolite area under the curve (AUC) and a ratio of the metabolite AUC to internal standard AUC show good correlation for all analytes. Linear fit of all amines was assessed using linear regression and was R² ≥ 0.99 for all compounds (Data not shown).

Method Validation Parameters (Table 2)

We assessed the method validation parameters for each of the 40 analytes. Baseline noise, which was directly measured as signal intensity and converted to assumed concentrations of interference per amine, was less than 3 μM for all analytes. The chromatographic conditions gave a LoD less than 5 μM for all compounds except for ammonia. Similarly, the LoQ, was the worst for ammonia. For carryover, only ethanolamine, after a 2.5 mM concentration sample, had sample carryover greater than 12.5 μM or 0.5% of the prior sample concentration. Specifically, ethanolamine showed an average carryover of 1.17% of the maximal concentration of 2.5 mM. Measures of precision were conducted for the method as well and intra-assay and inter-assay variability was less than 4 μM, or 4% of the known concentration, for all compounds including the labile compound, glutathione.

As we purport that this method can increase the access to an amino acid analysis and therefore increase the number of analyses run sequentially, we conducted an additional measure of variation to assess the amount of variance that occurs between samples when stored in the sample tray, which is maintained at 4 °C in our instrument. This would mimic a long sample run in which they are left for 24 hours or more after preparation, such as to run overnight. As expected both ammonia and glutathione showed greater than 10% variation from the known concentration in this delayed sample anlaysis variability test, as did trimethyllysine and tryptophan.

Cysteine was not well detected via this methodology. A concentration curve was run for this compound and poor resolution from the baseline was noted for concentrations under 500 μM. Additionally, a second peak in the concentration curve generated for cysteine was noted to have a linear increase in concentration with cysteine concentration. Based on retention time this was determined to be cystine that resulted from the well-known spontaneous oxidation reaction of cysteine to the disulfide, cystine, at neutral pH.(17,18) Thus, in our method, the peak representing cystine was deemed to be a combined cysteine + cystine peak. Homocysteine was also unstable via this method, and spontaneously formed its disulfide homocystine. While homocysteine could be qualitatively observed and resolved from other peaks, unlike cysteine, but only on samples run within 24 hours of preparation, it could not be reliably quantitated (Figure 1). Also, there was no significant effect on inter-assay variability for the disulfide compounds suggesting that the vast majority of cysteine and homocysteine is very rapidly, before detection, oxidized to the disulfide form.

The OPA derivatization reaction was conducted in the presence of a thiol reducing reagent, specifically 2-mercaptoethanol. There was concern for multiple peaks from replacement of 2-mercaptoethanol by the thiol group in thiol containing amines, namely glutathione, cysteine, and homocysteine. Specifically, whether there would be a peak with OPA, the 2-mercaptoethanol thiol group, and the relevant amine, and a second peak without the 2-mercaptoethanol thiol group but instead with the sulfhydryl group internal to the amino acid. Notably, none of the thiol group containing amino acids gave this unique secondary peak.

Application to Biologic Samples

Biologic samples from a patient without a documented IEM (Figure 2) as well as multiple patients with documented IEMs, specifically maple syrup urine disease (MSUD), ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency, and carbamoyl phosphate synthetase 1 deficiency, were assessed for practical application of the method. We furthermore wanted to determine the ability to resolve amines in both red blood cells and plasma. Biologic samples showed good separation without need for further adjustment for separation of unidentified peaks in both sample types. Using this methodology we were able to identify and quantitate all clinically relevant peaks, in a blinded fashion, that led to the correct clinical diagnosis. Notably, on prior analysis of the same sample from a patient with MSUD conducted by our clinical laboratory using a ninhydrin-based assay the pathognomonic compound, alloisoleucine, was only qualitatively reported via that technology.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Plasma from a Biologic Sample.

Shown is a sample from a healthy volunteer to represent how the methodology functions in a biologic matrix. Unlabeled peaks were unidentified and distinct, based on retention time, from known analytes based on metabolite standards run during the same chromatographic program.