Comparison of isotope ratio mass spectrometry and cavity ring‐down spectroscopy procedures and precision of the doubly labeled water method in different physiological specimens. (19th September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sagayama, Hiroyuki; Racine, Natalie M.; Shriver, Timothy C.; Schoeller, Dale A.
• Is Part Of: Rapid communications in mass spectrometry. Volume 35:Number 21(2021)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-09-19
• Subjects: Mass spectrometry -- Periodicals; 543.65
• DOI: 10.1002/rcm.9188
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0951-4198

Abstract

Abstract : Rationale: This study determines if saliva collection procedures for the doubly labeled water (DLW) method, used for measuring total energy expenditure (TEE), are comparable to urine and plasma collection. Both the cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) and isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) analyses techniques are compared. Methods: Saliva specimens were collected from participants for the DLW method. The specimens were collected under different conditions: after consumption of tap water, after chewing gum, and during exposure to conditions of high and low relative humidity. The isotopes in saliva were compared with simultaneous plasma and urine collection. TEE calculated from saliva and analyzed using CRDS was compared to that of plasma analyzed using IRMS. Results: The within‐individual variances were not significantly different between the saliva specimens (0.4‰) and plasma (0.3‰). After the oral dose of DLW, the saliva specimens displayed a shorter equilibration time to urine. When participants consumed 500 mL of tap water, the enrichment of saliva specimens reached a new plateau value faster than urine. Saliva collection exposed to high ambient humidity conditions was slightly less enriched as compared to low‐humidity conditions while urine enrichment was unaffected. In contrast, whereas the within‐individual effects of gum chewing during saliva collection on 18 O were unaffected, the abundance of 2 H in saliva was slightly lower after chewing the gum. The within‐individual difference between TEE calculated from saliva and that calculated from plasma analyzed using IRMS did not differ from zero, and the standard deviation was not different from that predicted by a propagation of error analysis based on analytical error alone. Conclusions: Our findings support using saliva specimens for the DLW method. The analysis of plasma and urine, however, requires reducing the memory effect resulting from contaminants. Also, it should be performed in a manner that minimizes exposure to air where specimens may be exposed to evaporation or contamination from water vapor during sampling.