Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32462275›Full record

ArticleNeurotoxicity research2021

Second Laboratory Validation of β-N-Methylamino-L-Alanine, N-(2aminoethyl)Glycine, and 2,4-Diaminobuytric Acid by Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography and Tandem Mass Spectrometry.

Sandra Anne Banack

Erratum issuedAbstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurotoxicity research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. BMAA, Neurodegeneration, and Neuroprotection.Neurotoxicity research · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sandra Anne BanackBrain Chemistry Laboratory, Jackson, WY, 83001, USA. sandra@ethnomedicine.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The analysis of β-N-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA) has been validated according to AOAC international standards by a single laboratory (Glover et al. 2015). Using the same validated method, we add a second laboratory validation optimizing for different equipment. Given publicized concerns about standardizing methods across laboratories and recent reviews indicating superior results using 6-aminoquinolyl-N-hydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate derivatization for the separation of BMAA and its isomers N-(2aminoethyl)glycine (AEG), and 2,4-diaminobuytric acid (DAB) (Bishop and Murch 2019), we add a second laboratory validation to this method demonstrating that the method is robust across laboratories using different equipment. Using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA 2018) method for evaluating instrument parameters, we calculated a limit of detection (LOD) of 10 pg/ml for BMAA, AEG, and DAB and lower limits of quantification (LLOQ) of 37 pg/ml based on reagent blanks. In biological matrices, a higher LLOQ may be warranted for AEG and DAB. We demonstrate that the endogenous BMAA in mussel tissue can be lost by drying the hydrolyzed preparation and suggest sample preparation parameters be evaluated for robustness.

Indexed as

Amino Acids, DiaminoChromatography, LiquidCyanobacteria ToxinsTandem Mass SpectrometryAmino Acids, Diaminobeta-N-methylamino-L-alanineCyanobacteria ToxinsAmino acid analysisAnalytical methods(S)-2-amino-3-(methylamino)propanoic acidβ-N-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA)

Identifiers

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.