The comparison of plasma deproteinization methods for the detection of low-molecular-weight metabolites by 1H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Blood plasma is the major vehicle by which metabolites are transported around the body in mammalian species, and chemical analysis of plasma can provide a wealth of information relating to the biochemical status of an individual and is important for diagnostic purposes. However, plasma is very complex in physicochemical terms because it is composed of a range of organic and inorganic constituents with a wide range of molecular weights and chemical classes and this makes analysis non-trivial. It is now well established that high-resolution (1)H NMR spectroscopy of blood plasma provides useful qualitative and quantitative biochemical information relating to metabolic disorders. However, one of the problems encountered in NMR spectroscopic analysis of blood plasma is the extensive peak overlap or presence of broad macromolecule peaks in the (1)H NMR spectrum, which can severely limit the amount of obtainable information. Even with spectroscopic editing, information relating to low-molecular-weight (MW) metabolites is frequently lost. Therefore, the efficiency of a range of conventional protein removal methods, in combination with the use of one- and two-dimensional NMR spectroscopic methods for evaluation, have been compared for the extraction of NMR-observable low-MW metabolites. It has been shown that these "deproteinization" methods vary considerably in recovery of low MW metabolites and a judicious choice is crucial for optimal extraction of a given analyte. The results presented here show that while ultrafiltration provides the "safest" method of plasma deproteinization, the signal-to-noise ratio of the resultant (1)H NMR spectra is poor. On the other hand, acetonitrile precipitation at physiological pH allows the detection of more low-MW metabolites and at higher concentrations than any other method and provides the further advantages of being a rapid and simple procedure. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA).