Analyses of representative biomarkers of exposure and effect by chromatographic, mass spectrometric, and nuclear magnetic resonance techniques: Method development and application in life sciences

Abstract

Biomarkers are essential tools in monitoring studies, which include environmental monitoring, biological monitoring, biological effect monitoring, and health surveillance, as well as drug development processes. Their discovery, validation, and analysis require highly sensitive and selective analytical technologies. In this regard, gas and liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy have facilitated great achievements in all these areas. In addition and closely related to biomarkers, the ongoing developments in these techniques promise a better understanding of the nature and mechanisms of toxic effects originating from various chemical, biological, or physical sources. This Review compiles studies performed on selected biomarkers with respect to both method development and application. Section 1 summarizes the concept of biomarkers; their application in various industrial/occupational, agricultural, drug developmental, and medical/clinical platforms. This section also focuses on biotransformation studies in close relation to biomarker discovery and validation, and on major techniques utilized in this area. In Section 2, biotransformation of volatile anesthetics in humans with a focus on mercapturic acid derivatives as potential biomarkers of effect is reviewed. The use of GC-ECD, GC/MS, and 19F-NMR in these studies is described. Section 3 focuses on the analysis of aldehydic lipid peroxidation degradation products by GC-ECD in mammalian cells in which oxidative stress induced chemically, and in humans after various challenges; anesthetic exposure, ischemia-reperfusion, and controlled endurance exercise. In Section 4, method development for protein and DNA oxidation products by LC-tandem MS and its application in mammalian cells and in humans are summarized. Possibilities, limitations, and future perspectives are discussed in Section 5.

Exercise‐induced lipid peroxidation: Implications for deoxyribonucleic acid damage and systemic free radical generation

“…Many investigators have relied on by-products of free radical-mediated molecular damage and changes in blood lipid soluble antioxidants to quantify oxidative stress [Orhan, 2007]. However, recent focus has been on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) oxidation potentially due it's susceptibly to oxidative attack and the notion that extensive DNA damage may have some pathological consequences [Cooke et al, 2003].…”

Allantoin as a Marker of Oxidative Stress: Inter- and Intraindividual Variability in Urinary Concentrations in Healthy Individuals

“…The most commonly used urinary OSBs are malondialdehyde (MDA) and F 2 -isoprostanes, both of which arise from the oxidation of lipids, 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), which is a marker of oxidation of DNA, and dityrosine (diY), which is a product of oxidative damage of proteins. , …”

“…8,9 The most commonly used urinary OSBs are malondialdehyde (MDA) 18 and F 2 -isoprostanes, 19 both of which arise from the oxidation of lipids, 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), which is a marker of oxidation of DNA, and dityrosine (diY), which is a product of oxidative damage of proteins. 1,20 A few studies have reported relationship between oxidative stress and exposure to organic contaminants. Those studies linked urinary levels of antimicrobials, parabens, bisphenols, benzophenones, 21 triclosan and triclocarban, 22 and phthalate metabolites 21,23,24 with OSBs such as 8-OHdG, MDA, diY, and/or F 2 -isoprostanes.…”

Detection of Volatile Organic Compounds as Potential Novel Biomarkers for Chorioamnionitis – Proof of Experimental Models

“…All organisms produce VOCs as part of their normal metabolism, and it has long been known that certain infections are accompanied by a distinct odor (50,51). Breathomics has been used to study volatile organic compounds produced by certain species or strains of bacteria in septic patients (52).…”