ArticleBMC chemistry2024
Development and validation of an LC‒MS/MS method for the determination of cyclocreatine phosphate and its related endogenous biomolecules in rat heart tissues.
Article in BMC chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mitochondrial DNA Damage Induced by Aristolochic Acid I: Recognizing the Heart as a Target Organ.Chemical research in toxicology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The cardioprotective drug cyclocreatine phosphate has been awarded Food and Drug Administration-orphan drug designation for the prevention of ischemic injury to enhance cardiac graft recovery and survival in heart transplantation. Cyclocreatine phosphate is the water-soluble derivative of cyclocreatine. Estimating the levels of Cyclocreatine phosphate, Adenosine triphosphate, Creatine Phosphate, Creatine and Cyclocreatine helps us in understanding the energy state as well as evaluating the heart cells' function. The quantification of endogenous compounds imposes a challenging task for analysts because of the absence of a true blank matrix, whose use is required according to international guidelines. Recently, the International Council for Harmonization issued a new guideline that contains guidance on the validation of methods used to quantify endogenous components, such as the background subtraction approach that was employed in our current study. Specifically, we developed and validated a sensitive, reliable and accurate liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay to determine simultaneously the levels of mentioned endogenous compounds in rat heart tissue. Tissue samples were prepared by protein precipitation extraction using water: methanol (1:1). Using Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography, Chromatographic separation was achieved with ZORBAX Eclipse Plus C18 4.6 × 100 mm,3.5 μm column and conditions as following: ammonium acetate (pH 8.5): acetonitrile, 70:30 mobile phase, 0.7 mL/min flow rate and 25 °C temperature. Electrospray ionization mass detector with Multiple reaction monitoring mode was then employed, using both positive and negative modes, Analysis was carried out using 5.00-2000.00 ng/mL linear concentration range within 2 min for each analyte. According to Food and Drug Administration guidelines for bioanalytical methods, validation was carried out. We investigated the matrix effect, recovery efficiency and process efficiency for the analyte in neat solvent, postextraction matrix and tissue. The results stated mean percentage recoveries higher than 99%, accuracy 93.32-111.99%, and Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) below 15% within the concentration range of our study which indicated that target analytes' stability in their real matrix is sufficient under the employed experimental conditions.
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.