Dear Sir, In connection with the paper published by Tao et al. [1] I have been asked by some researchers, as the inventor of the chloroformate methodology [2, 3], to comment on the “optimized protocol” as claimed in the abstract. The procedure, presented as a technique for “global metabolic profiling” is a lot else than that. It might work for the purpose to which it was applied, i.e. identification of themetabolites associatedwith human uremia, but it should not be pursued as a general tool “suitable for serum-based metabolic profiling studies” (Abstract). The method is substantially inferior in both ECF-mediated derivatization of amino acids, compared with the original detailed study [4], and the method used for serum sample workup, as described, e.g., in 1995 [5]. Let me briefly draw attention to the basic faults that reduce the effectiveness of the assay. First, replacing chloroform by hexane in the extraction step hampers transfer of polar products (serine, asparagine, glutamine) into the organic phase, and strongly reduces extraction of some others (glycine), as is apparent from the chromatographic record. The comment that “extraction efficiencies of chloroform and n-hexane are comparable” is thus completely incorrect, and to justify use of the latter by “facilitated removal of the hexane upper layer from the vial” is correct regarding sample handling but incorrect analytically. Second, the reason for the proposed two-step ECF derivatization, with intermediate basification of the aqueous layer, is declared as “exhibiting better derivatization efficiency and providing more useful information”. In which way? The opposite seems to be true. One would expect at least augmented yields of the dibasic amino acids but lysine, ornithine, and histidine are absent from the record. Comparing the figure with the GC record of the original study [4] one can see this lapse, especially in yields of the later eluted analytes. The repeated treatment of the aqueous layer after the first extraction of the products did not result in any improvement, as already shown in 1997; the efficiency of extraction of the derivatized amino acids with chloroform was close to 100% [6]. Third, treating serum with ethanol directly leads to disruption of lipoproteins, so massive amounts of neutral lipids, cholesterol esters, acylglycerols, and phospholipids are liberated and co-extracted with the derivatized amino acids. Their injection into the system leads to progressive poisoning of the inlet and the stationary phase, because the low-volatility species cannot be eluted from common stationary phases within the temperature range used. This phenomenon was, surprisingly, not discussed, although clear evidence of worsening GC–MS conditions was mentioned (p. 2887): “all of the samples from each batch were analyzed within 48 h, and maintenance of the equipment was carried out after every 48-h analysis”, without giving the reason for this. Simple removal of the neutral lipids by hexane extraction, while retaining amino, fatty, and other carboxylic acids as salts in the aqueous phase for the subsequent derivatization step, was published by me among the first pioneering studies [5]; this paper was not cited, although the assay afforded much better analytical performance and a better chance of successful metabolic profiling of that kind. Finally, the large peak on the chromatographic record (Nr. 1) was falsely assigned to propionic acid instead of to lactic acid, i.e. 3-hydroxypropionic acid. P. Husek (*) Biology Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Entomology, 370 05 Ceske Budějovice, Czech Republic e-mail: husek@bclab.eu
Read full abstract