Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39313523›Full record

ArticleTranslational psychiatry2024

Making bloodwork work: the impact of sample collection, processing, and storage on plasma glutathione measurement, and implications for translation.

Kendall M Coden, Duyen K K Nguyen, Roberta Moorhead, Beatriz E Stix-Brunell, Joanna N Baker, Karen J Parker, Joseph P Garner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Kendall M CodenDepartment of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. kcoden@umich.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1622-7424
Duyen K K NguyenDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Roberta MoorheadDepartment of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Beatriz E Stix-BrunellDepartment of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Joanna N BakerDepartment of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-7954-5017
Karen J ParkerDepartment of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6836-6338
Joseph P GarnerDepartment of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. jgarner@stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3209-9389

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychiatry has traditionally focused on the study of neurons and neurotransmitter physiology in the pathophysiology and treatment of psychiatric disorders. A growing literature highlights REDOX imbalance (a state in which demand for antioxidants surpasses their bioavailability) as a common pathophysiology for a diverse array of brain conditions (e.g., trichotillomania, schizophrenia, autism, Parkinson's disease). REDOX imbalance is typically measured via plasma glutathione, as glutathione is critical to the adaptive antioxidant response in the brain. Accordingly, glutathione, its precursors, and/or metabolites serve as biomarkers of disease risk, therapeutic targets, and measures of treatment response. However, as with any emerging field, there are currently several different methods for collection, processing, storage, and calculation of summary measures of plasma glutathione metabolism, within and between preclinical and clinical research. The lack of evidence-based best-practice methodology hampers reproducibility (preclinical or clinical), and translation (between preclinical and clinical work). To address this methodological need, here we used a repeated measures within-subject design to investigate how sample preparation (type of anticoagulant used during blood collection, deproteinization status, and storage temperature) affects plasma glutathione levels. Accordingly, we collected whole blood from mice (N = 13), and then, using a commercially available kit, quantified glutathione in plasma stored in four different ways. Presuming that these preparation conditions and post-processing calculations are unimportant, we would expect to see no difference in glutathione levels and summary measures from the same sample. However, we found each of these variables to significantly alter quantified glutathione levels. Accordingly, we propose a vital, gold-standard methodology for both sample collection, processing, and storage of plasma used for glutathione quantification and for summary calculations of glutathione that can be used preclinically and clinically, thus yielding more streamlined translation.

Indexed as

GlutathioneAnimalsBiomarkersBlood Specimen CollectionHumansMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLReproducibility of ResultsSpecimen HandlingTranslational Research, BiomedicalBiomarkersGlutathione

Identifiers

PMID39313523
PMCPMC11420238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.