SLAS Discovery - Special Issue on Advances in MALDI Mass Spectrometry for Drug Discovery - Volume 22 Issue 10 - December 2017 - 1260

1260
sample preparation throughput significantly, that is, 15-20
min per sample (SPE and MALDI-MS analysis), compared
with 60-90 min per sample (SPE and LC-MS analysis) for
the standard off-line SPE cartridge method. Moreover, the
highly parallelized method means that costs are reduced, for
example, using a less solid phase (20 µL) and smaller sample volume (both often available in limited amounts) and
solvents, naturally facilitating considerable time savings,
which scales with the increased sample numbers. It can be
automated using basic liquid handling robotics and applied
in different analytical workflows, leading in turn to greater
consistency and reduced sample preparation time and effort.
The issue of long analysis time as the LC-MS runs could be
addressed using a MALDI readout, as demonstrated here.
An entire plate can be run in 8 experiments (e.g., in our
experiment, we used 8 different polymers with 4 SPE conditions in duplicate, for 48 samples in total for each experiment), and a partial analytical run of 144 samples on a
MALDI-MS could be performed in approximately 15-20
min per sample (SPE and MALDI-MS analysis), with the
cost of extraction sorbent for the screening made at a very
low per sample cost (~0.5-1 USD/sample). The 384-well
laboratory automation also minimizes the risk of mislabeling and sample handling errors. This makes the 384-well
filter plate setup an efficient high-throughput screening
platform for newly prepared sorbent materials using a
MALDI-MS output.
In the case of the investigated ProGRP-specific MIP and
NIP phases, the multiplexed experiments confirmed findings previously reported27 with the identification of the
optimal polymer sorbent for the hydrophobic retention of
NLLGLIEAK. In addition, the presented platform allowed
the identification of new SPE conditions with suppressed
nonspecific binding. In the same settings, MIP sorbents
showed enrichment toward the target peptide NLLGLIEAK,
with the depletion of other peptides.

SLAS Discovery 22(10)

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

14.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
work has been performed as part of the ITN project PEPMIP
(grant agreement no. 264699) supported by the Seventh Research
Framework Programme of the European Commission under Marie
Curie actions.

15.

References

18.

1. Fontanals, N.; Marcé, R. M.; Borrull, F.; et al. Mixed-Mode
Ion-Exchange Polymeric Sorbents: Dual-Phase Materials

16.
17.

That Improve Selectivity and Capacity. Trends Analyt. Chem.
2010, 29, 765-779.
Lame, M. E.; Chambers, E. E.; Blatnik, M. Quantitation of
Amyloid Beta Peptides Aβ1-38, Aβ1-40, and Aβ1-42 in
Human Cerebrospinal Fluid by Ultra-Performance Liquid
Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Anal.
Biochem. 2011, 419, 133-139.
Qiu, J.; Yan, Y.; Chang, H.; et al. Preparation of a Concentric
Layered Structure of an Electrospun Nanofiber Column for
Solid-Phase Extraction of Mass Viscous Crude Extracts.
Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2016, 408, 4425-4433.
Ravelo-Pérez, L. M.; Herrera-Herrera, A. V.; HernándezBorges, J.; et al. Carbon Nanotubes: Solid-Phase Extraction.
J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 2618-2641.
Jacobs, J. M.; Adkins, J. N.; Qian, W.-J.; et al. Utilizing
Human Blood Plasma for Proteomic Biomarker Discovery. J.
Proteome Res. 2005, 4, 1073-1085.
Anderson, N. L.; Anderson, N. G. The Human Plasma
Proteome: History, Character, and Diagnostic Prospects. Mol.
Cell. Proteomics 2002, 1, 845-867.
Decramer, S.; de Peredo, A. G.; Breuil, B.; et al. Urine in Clinical
Proteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2008, 7, 1850-1862.
Rodríguez-Suárez, E.; Siwy, J.; Zürbig, P.; et al. Urine as a
Source for Clinical Proteome Analysis: From Discovery to
Clinical Application. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2014, 1844,
884-898.
Cruz-Vera, M.; Lucena, R.; Cárdenas, S.; et al. Highly Selective
and Non-Conventional Sorbents for the Determination of
Biomarkers in Urine by Liquid Chromatography. Anal.
Bioanal. Chem. 2010, 397, 1029-1038.
Płotka-Wasylka, J.; Szczepańska, N.; de la Guardia, M.;
et al. Modern Trends in Solid Phase Extraction: New Sorbent
Media. Trends Analyt. Chem. 2016, 77, 23-43.
Hennion, M.-C.; Pichon, V. Immuno-Based Sample
Preparation for Trace Analysis. J. Chromatogr. A 2003, 1000,
29-52.
Du, F.; Guo, L.; Qin, Q.; et al. Recent Advances in AptamerFunctionalized Materials in Sample Preparation. Trends
Analyt. Chem. 2015, 67, 134-146.
Cheong, W. J.; Yang, S. H.; Ali, F. Molecular Imprinted
Polymers for Separation Science: A Review of Reviews. J.
Sep. Sci. 2013, 36, 609-628.
Nevanen, T. K.; Simolin, H.; Suortti, T.; et al. Development
of a High-Throughput Format for Solid-Phase Extraction of
Enantiomers Using an Immunosorbent in 384-Well Plates.
Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 3038-3044.
Parker, C. E.; Pearson, T. W.; Anderson, N. L.; et al. MassSpectrometry-Based Clinical Proteomics-A Review and
Prospective. Analyst 2010, 135, 1830-1838.
Stevenson, D. Immuno-Affinity Solid-Phase Extraction. J.
Chromatogr. B Biomed. Sci. Appl. 2000, 745, 39-48.
Buszewski, B.; Szultka, M. Past, Present, and Future of Solid
Phase Extraction: A Review. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2012, 42,
198-213.
Remcho, V. T.; Tan, Z. J. Peer Reviewed: MIPs as
Chromatographic Stationary Phases for Molecular Recognition.
Anal. Chem. 1999, 71, 248A-255A.
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of SLAS Discovery - Special Issue on Advances in MALDI Mass Spectrometry for Drug Discovery - Volume 22 Issue 10 - December 2017
