STRATEGIES AND CHALLENGES IN METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION FOR THE ABSOLUTE QUANTIFICATION OF ENDOGENOUS BIOMARKER METABOLITES USING LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY‐TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY

Metabolomics is a dynamically evolving field, with a major application in identifying biomarkers for drug development and personalized medicine. Numerous metabolomic studies have identified endogenous metabolites that, in principle, are eligible for translation to clinical practice. However, few metabolomic‐derived biomarker candidates have been qualified by regulatory bodies for clinical applications. Such interruption in the biomarker qualification process can be largely attributed to various reasons including inappropriate study design and inadequate data to support the clinical utility of the biomarkers. In addition, the lack of robust assays for the routine quantification of candidate biomarkers has been suggested as a potential bottleneck in the biomarker qualification process. In fact, the nature of the endogenous metabolites precludes the application of the current validation guidelines for bioanalytical methods. As a result, there have been individual efforts in modifying existing guidelines and/or developing alternative approaches to facilitate method validation. In this review, three main challenges for method development and validation for endogenous metabolites are discussed, namely matrix effects evaluation, alternative analyte‐free matrices, and the choice of internal standards (ISs). Some studies have modified the equations described by the European Medicines Agency for the evaluation of matrix effects. However, alternative strategies were also described; for instance, calibration curves can be generated in solvents and in biological samples and the slopes can be compared through ratios, relative standard deviation, or a modified Stufour suggested approaches while quantifying mainly endogenous metabolitesdent t‐ test. ISs, on the contrary, are diverse; in which seven different possible types, used in metabolomics‐based studies, were identified in the literature. Each type has its advantages and limitations; however, isotope‐labeled ISs and ISs created through isotope derivatization show superior performance. Finally, alternative matrices have been described and tested during method development and validation for the quantification of endogenous entities. These alternatives are discussed in detail, highlighting their advantages and shortcomings. The goal of this review is to compare, apprise, and debate current knowledge and practices in order to aid researchers and clinical scientists in developing robust assays needed during the qualification process of candidate metabolite biomarkers. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Mass Spec Rev