ArticleElectrophoresis2025
Quantitative Endogenous Polyamine Analysis via Capillary Electrophoresis/Mass Spectrometry: Characterization and Practical Considerations.
Article in Electrophoresis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Commonly used analytical techniques for polyamine analysis, including derivatization and mixed-mode liquid chromatography (LC), have inherent disadvantages. Capillary electrophoresis (CE) is uniquely suited to analyze small, highly charged molecules because analytes are separated on the basis of their electrophoretic mobility, not polarity or association with a stationary phase. Microfluidic CE-mass spectrometry (mCE-MS) is a relatively recent addition to commercially available CE offerings that streamlines traditional CE-MS interfacing and has the potential to improve upon classic CE challenges to robustness and reproducibility. MS instrument choice and scanning parameters are strongly influenced by a need for high acquisition rate to adequately sample CE peaks. Alternatively, isotachophoresis on loading can be intentionally avoided to produce sufficiently wide peaks. The mCE platform utilized here performed very well in many metrics; a limit of detection (LOD) as low as 0.25 ng/mL was achieved for spermidine, and endogenous spermidine was easily detected in blood with this method. Both of these are challenging tasks for any separation technique and demonstrate a strong use case for the platform. During experimentation, various idiosyncrasies in the commercial CE-MS interface resulted in extensive chip-to-chip variability in both peak shape and LOD, complicating the application to robust absolute quantitation. Practical guidance for similar analyses is provided.
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.