ReviewJournal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis2020
Direct and indirect quantification of phosphate metabolites of nucleoside analogs in biological samples.
Review in Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From nucleotides to intact transcripts through oligonucleotides: Integrated chromatographic strategies for therapeutic mRNA characterization.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Review
- Is Monitoring of the Intracellular Active Metabolite Levels of Nucleobase and Nucleoside Analogs Ready for Precision Medicine Applications?European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2022Review
- Challenges and stepwise fit-for-purpose optimization for bioanalyses of remdesivir metabolites nucleotide monophosphate and triphosphate in mouse tissues using LC-MS/MS.Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are prodrugs that require intracellular phosphorylation to active triphosphate nucleotide metabolites (NMs) for their pharmacological activity. However, monitoring these pharmacologically active NMs is challenging due to their instability, high hydrophilicity, and their low concentrations in blood and tissues. Liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the gold standard technique for the quantification of NRTIs and their phosphorylated NMs. In this review, an overview of the publications describing the quantitative analysis of intracellular and total tissue concentration of NMs is presented. The focus of this review is the comparison of the different approaches and challenges associated with sample collection, tissue homogenization, cell lysis, cell counting, analyte extraction, sample storage conditions, and LC-MS analysis. Quantification methods of NMs via LC-MS can be categorized into direct and indirect methods. In the direct LC-MS methods, chromatographic retention of the NMs is accomplished by ion-exchange (IEX), ion-pairing (IP), hydrophilic interaction (HILIC), porous graphitic carbon (PGC) chromatography, or capillary electrophoresis (CE). In indirect methods, parent nucleosides are 1st generated from the dephosphorylation of NMs during sample preparation and are then quantified by reverse phase LC-MS as surrogates for their corresponding NMs. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages associated with them, which are discussed in this review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.