Characterization of Monophasic Solvent-Based Tissue Extractions for the Detection of Polar Metabolites and Lipids Applying Ultrahigh-Performance Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Clinical Metabolic Phenotyping Assays

Metabolic phenotyping of tissues uses metabolomics and lipidomics to measure the relative polar and nonpolar (lipid) metabolite levels in biological samples. This approach aims to understand disease biochemistry and identify biochemical markers of disease. Sample preparation methods must be reproducible, sensitive (high metabolite and lipid yield), and ideally rapid. We evaluated three biphasic methods for polar and nonpolar compound extraction (chloroform/methanol/water, dichloromethane/methanol/water, and methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]/methanol/water), a monophasic method for polar compound extraction (acetonitrile/methanol/water), and a monophasic method for nonpolar compound extraction (isopropanol/water). All methods were applied to mammalian heart, kidney, and liver tissues. Polar extracts were analyzed by hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC) ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (UHPLC–MS) and nonpolar extracts by C18 reversed-phase UHPLC–MS. Method reproducibility and yield were assessed using multiple annotated endogenous compounds (putatively and MS/MS annotated). Monophasic methods had the highest yield and high reproducibility for both polar (positive ion: median relative standard deviation (RSD) < 18%; negative ion: median RSD < 28%) and nonpolar (positive and negative ion: median RSD < 15%) extractions for heart, kidneys, and liver. The polar monophasic method extracted higher levels of lipid than biphasic polar extractions, and these lipids caused minimal detection suppression for other compounds during HILIC UHPLC–MS. The nonpolar monophasic method had similar or greater detection responses of all detected lipid classes compared to biphasic methods (including increased phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidylserine, and cardiolipin responses). Monophasic methods are quicker and simpler than biphasic methods and are therefore most suited for future automation.