Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27228284›Full record

ArticleAnalytical chemistry2016

Understanding the Complexity of Porous Graphitic Carbon (PGC) Chromatography: Modulation of Mobile-Stationary Phase Interactions Overcomes Loss of Retention and Reduces Variability.

Tashinga E Bapiro, Frances M Richards, Duncan I Jodrell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical chemistry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. SWAMNA: a comprehensive platform for analysis of nucleic acid modifications.Chemical communications (Cambridge, England) · 2023
    Article
  11. Cell-Free Multi-Enzyme Synthesis and Purification of Uridine Diphosphate Galactose.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tashinga E BapiroCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Li Ka Shing Centre , Box 278, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, United Kingdom.
Frances M RichardsCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Li Ka Shing Centre , Box 278, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, United Kingdom.
Duncan I JodrellCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Li Ka Shing Centre , Box 278, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15678Cancer Research UK C14303/A17197
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Porous graphitic carbon (PGC) is an important tool in a chromatographer's armory that retains polar compounds with mass spectrometry (MS)-compatible solvents. However, its applicability is severely limited by an unpredictable loss of retention, which can be attributed to contamination. The solutions offered fail to restore the original retention and our observations of retention time shifts of gemcitabine/metabolites on PGC are not consistent with contamination. The mobile phase affects the ionization state of analytes and the polarizable PGC surface that influences the strength of dispersive forces governing retention on the stationary phase. We hypothesized that failure to maintain the same PGC surface before and after running a gradient is a cause of the observed retention loss/variability on PGC. Herein, we optimize the choice of mobile phase solvent in a gradient program with three parts: a preparatory phase, which allows binding of analytes to column; an elution phase, which gives the required separation/peak shape; and a maintenance phase, to preserve the required retention capacity. Via liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis of gemcitabine and its metabolites extracted from tumor tissue, we demonstrate reproducible chromatography on three PGC columns of different ages. This approach simplifies use of the PGC to the same level as that of a C-18 column, removes the need for column regeneration, and minimizes run times, thus allowing PGC columns to be used to their full potential.

Identifiers

PMID27228284
PMCPMC5362737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.