TY - JOUR
AU - Kasper, David, C
AB - BACKGROUND Interest in lysosomal storage disorders, a collection of more than 40 inherited metabolic disorders, has increased because of new therapy options such as enzyme replacement, stem cell transplantation, and substrate reduction therapy. We developed a high-throughput protocol that simplifies analytical challenges such as complex sample preparation and potential interference from excess residual substrate associated with previously reported assays. METHODS After overnight incubation (16–20 h) of dried blood spots with a cassette of substrates and deuterated internal standards, we used a TLX-2 system to quantify 6 lysosomal enzyme activities for Fabry, Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Pompe, Krabbe, and mucopolysaccharidosis I disease. This multiplexed, multidimensional ultra-HPLC–tandem mass spectrometry assay included Cyclone P Turbo Flow and Hypersil Gold C8 columns. The method did not require offline sample preparation such as liquid–liquid and solid-phase extraction, or hazardous reagents such as ethyl acetate. RESULTS Obviating the offline sample preparation steps led to substantial savings in analytical time (approximately 70%) and reagent costs (approximately 50%). In a pilot study, lysosomal enzyme activities of 8586 newborns were measured, including 51 positive controls, and the results demonstrated 100% diagnostic sensitivity and high specificity. The results for Krabbe disease were validated with parallel measurements by the New York State Screening Laboratory. CONCLUSIONS Turboflow online sample cleanup and the use of an additional analytical column enabled the implementation of lysosomal storage disorder testing in a nationwide screening program while keeping the total analysis time to <2 min per sample. In recent years various approaches for high-throughput tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS)7 screening of lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) have been developed. The first assays were developed for the screening of Pompe, Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Fabry, and Krabbe disease in 2004 (1). The protocols have continuously evolved, and have been refined and optimized for high-throughput analysis (2, 3). The screening panel for LSDs was recently expanded and currently includes MS/MS assays for mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) I, II, IVA, and VI (4,–,7). However, newborn screening for LSDs is still a technological challenge. One of the major technical challenges in implementing MS/MS-based multiplex enzyme assays by using the currently available substrates is the complexity of sample preparation. Specimens collected from newborns are incubated with enzyme-specific buffers containing substrates for each lysosomal enzyme, followed by MS/MS detection of all respective enzymatic products and internal standards. The technology for screening several enzyme activities at once from more or less 1 single blood punch is complicated, time-consuming, and laborious, and includes the handling of hazardous reagents such as ethyl acetate (1, 3). Currently, routine newborn screening for LSDs has been introduced for Pompe disease in Taiwan (8) and by the state of New York for Krabbe disease (9). Other US states such as Washington (10) and countries such as Austria started the first pilot studies for multiplex MS/MS screening, in which a variety of LSDs are screened within a single assay (11,–,13). For future implementation of high-throughput LSD assays in routine clinical diagnostics, sample handling and MS analysis must be simplified; specifically, sample pretreatment, separation, and finally detection must become more integrated (14). The implementation of online multidimensional chromatography combining sample preparation with analysis in 1 protocol facilitates ease-of-use sample introduction and increases speed of analysis (15). Turbulent flow chromatography (Turboflow) involves the use of large-diameter particles (approximately 30 μm) with a high surface area packed into narrow-bore columns (0.5–1 mm i.d.) and available in a variety of stationary phases. Relatively crude samples such as dilute serum, cerebrospinal fluid, plasma, urine, blood-spot extracts, and whole blood can be injected directly into these columns under high mobile-phase linear velocities, inducing turbulent-flow conditions. TurboFlow simultaneously eliminates matrix interferences from salts and proteins, the most common suppressors of MS/MS performance, and eliminates the need to perform liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) and solid-phase extraction (SPE) cleanup steps of previous methods (3, 16). The Turboflow cleanup is accomplished online in a matter of seconds and the analytes of interest, after cleanup of potential matrix interferences, are subsequently transferred to an analytical column for ultra-HPLC (UHPLC) separation before MS/MS analysis (17). We recently introduced a method for screening for LSDs that uses Turboflow chromatography technology (18). In the current study, we modified and optimized the system for high-throughput screening of 6 different LSDs in a single assay. To demonstrate the technical feasibility and robustness of this novel method, we applied it within a comprehensive pilot screening program that runs up to several thousand samples in a routine newborn screening laboratory, including samples from affected patients. Moreover, the protocol was expanded for the screening of MPS I, and parallel measurements were performed in collaboration with the newborn screening (NBS) laboratory in New York state, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, for evaluation of its use with their Krabbe assay (9). Material and Methods MATERIALS Deionized water (18 MΩ) produced by a Millipore Milli-Q Reference A+ System. Methanol (#106035) and isopropanol (#109634) were purchased from Merck Chemicals. Acetone (#650501), formic acid (#94318), and trifluoroacetic acid (#T62200) were purchased from Sigma Aldrich. Acetonitrile (#A/0627/17), Cyclone P 0.5 × 50–mm Turbo Flow HTLC columns, and Hypersil Gold C8 2.1 × 50–mm, 1.9-μm particle size columns were purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Microplates 96/U (#0030 601.203), microplates 96/F (#0030 601.106) and deep well plates (#0030 505.301) were purchased from Eppendorf. After we received informed consent from the parents, we collected dried blood spots (DBS) consecutively from 8586 newborns during the national routine Austrian NBS program. In Austria, NBS is centralized and conducted by one single laboratory located at the Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, for the entire population (approximately 78 000 births/year). In addition, NBS samples and 51 samples from patients with known LSDs were analyzed anonymously for 6 different lysosomal enzyme activities beyond the current screening panel for endocrine and metabolic disorders, including cystic fibrosis (19). The study was approved by the local ethics committee (EK 478/2009) and conducted in accordance with the institutional guidelines. The expanded screening for LSDs included the analysis of acid β-glucocerebrosidase (ABG), α-galactosidase (GLA), α-glucosidase (GAA), acid sphingomyelinase (ASM), galactocerebrosidase (GALC), and iduronidase (IDUA) enzyme activities in the anonymized DBS samples. SAMPLE PREPARATION Sample preparation was performed according to a 2-day working protocol. On day 1, the protocol for the incubation of DBS with enzyme reagent cocktails was adapted from Zhang et al. (3) for ABG, ASM, GAA, and GLA and from Blanchard et al. (20) for IDUA. The GALC protocol was modified from Orsini and his coworkers (9). All protocols for day 1 and 2 are described in detail in the Supplementary Materials 1 in the Data Supplement that accompanies the online version of this article at http://www.clinchem.org/content/vol57/issue9. In brief, on day 1 aliquots of a single blood spot were incubated with enzyme-specific buffers containing substrates and internal standard for each lysosomal enzyme. On day 2, after an overnight incubation of 20–22 h, the enzymatic reactions for ABG, ASM, GAA, GLA, and IDUA were quenched with 100 μL stop solution (80 mL acetonitrile/19.8 mL water/0.2 mL formic acid). After an overnight incubation of 19.5–21.5 h (30-min shorter than the previous incubation), the GALC enzyme reaction was quenched with 100 μL stop solution, sealed with silicone covers, and incubated again (30 min, 37 °C, 750 rpm) to maximize the product outcome. Finally, all 6 assays were transferred into 1 single deep well plate, sealed with aluminum foil, centrifuged for 15 min at 3320g, and measured with the TLX2 system by using online sample cleanup. Table 1 provides a short overview of the Zhang et al. protocol with the use of LLE and SPE compared with the new simplified protocol. Stepwise comparison of a protocol that includes liquid–liquid and solid-phase extraction and the new Turboflow chromatography online cleanup protocol (∼400 newborns per day). Table 1. Stepwise comparison of a protocol that includes liquid–liquid and solid-phase extraction and the new Turboflow chromatography online cleanup protocol (∼400 newborns per day). . 5-Plex protocola . 6-Plex protocol (TLX2 system) . Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Pompe, Fabry, and Krabbe disease . Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Pompe, Fabry, Krabbe, and MPS I disease . Day 1 Punching of DBS in duplicates (2 × 4 MTPs)b Punching of DBS in duplicates (2 × 4 MTPs) Reelute with 70 μL extraction buffer (first spot) Reelute with 70 μL extraction buffer (first spot) Incubate (1 h, 37 °C, 750 rpm) Incubate (1 h, 37 °C, 750 rpm) Incubation of 10-μL DBS extraction aliquots from first spot with 15 μL reaction cocktail, separately for ABG, ASM, GAA, and GLA Incubation of 10-μL DBS extraction aliquots from first spot with 15 μL reaction cocktail, separately for ABG, ASM, GAA, GLA, and IDUA Centrifuge all plates (1 min, 1000g) Centrifuge all plates (1 min, 1000g) Incubation of the second spot with 30 μL GALC reaction cocktail Incubation of the second spot with 30 μL GALC reaction cocktail Centrifuge (1 min, 1000g) Centrifuge (1 min, 1000g) Incubate (20–24 h, 37 °C, 250 rpm) Incubate (20–24 h, 37 °C, 250 rpm) Time: 2.7 h Time: 2.7 h Day 2 +100 μL 1:1 methanol/ethyl acetate +80 mL acetonitrile/19.8 mL water/0.2 mL FA to all GALC plates Transfer all corresponding specimens into 1 deep well MTP Shake GALC plate (10 min, 750 rpm) +400 μL ethyl acetate +100 μL 80:20 acetonitrile/water + 0.2% FA to all other plates +400 μL HPLC Water Transfer all corresponding specimens into 1 deep well MTP Shake (5 min, ∼500 rpm) Repeat this procedure for all 4 plates Centrifuge (∼3000g, 10 min) Centrifuge (∼3000g, 15 min) LLE; transfer into deep well MTP N2 dry (10–15 min) Reelute with 100 μL methanol/ethyl acetate SPE with silica gel N2 dry (20–25 min) Reelute with 50:50 acetonitrile/water MS analysis Repeat this procedure for all 4 plates MS analysis Total time: 4–5 h Total time: 50 min . 5-Plex protocola . 6-Plex protocol (TLX2 system) . Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Pompe, Fabry, and Krabbe disease . Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Pompe, Fabry, Krabbe, and MPS I disease . Day 1 Punching of DBS in duplicates (2 × 4 MTPs)b Punching of DBS in duplicates (2 × 4 MTPs) Reelute with 70 μL extraction buffer (first spot) Reelute with 70 μL extraction buffer (first spot) Incubate (1 h, 37 °C, 750 rpm) Incubate (1 h, 37 °C, 750 rpm) Incubation of 10-μL DBS extraction aliquots from first spot with 15 μL reaction cocktail, separately for ABG, ASM, GAA, and GLA Incubation of 10-μL DBS extraction aliquots from first spot with 15 μL reaction cocktail, separately for ABG, ASM, GAA, GLA, and IDUA Centrifuge all plates (1 min, 1000g) Centrifuge all plates (1 min, 1000g) Incubation of the second spot with 30 μL GALC reaction cocktail Incubation of the second spot with 30 μL GALC reaction cocktail Centrifuge (1 min, 1000g) Centrifuge (1 min, 1000g) Incubate (20–24 h, 37 °C, 250 rpm) Incubate (20–24 h, 37 °C, 250 rpm) Time: 2.7 h Time: 2.7 h Day 2 +100 μL 1:1 methanol/ethyl acetate +80 mL acetonitrile/19.8 mL water/0.2 mL FA to all GALC plates Transfer all corresponding specimens into 1 deep well MTP Shake GALC plate (10 min, 750 rpm) +400 μL ethyl acetate +100 μL 80:20 acetonitrile/water + 0.2% FA to all other plates +400 μL HPLC Water Transfer all corresponding specimens into 1 deep well MTP Shake (5 min, ∼500 rpm) Repeat this procedure for all 4 plates Centrifuge (∼3000g, 10 min) Centrifuge (∼3000g, 15 min) LLE; transfer into deep well MTP N2 dry (10–15 min) Reelute with 100 μL methanol/ethyl acetate SPE with silica gel N2 dry (20–25 min) Reelute with 50:50 acetonitrile/water MS analysis Repeat this procedure for all 4 plates MS analysis Total time: 4–5 h Total time: 50 min a Adapted from Zhang et al. (2). b MTP, 96-well microtiter plate; FA, formic acid; N2, nitrogen. Open in new tab Table 1. Stepwise comparison of a protocol that includes liquid–liquid and solid-phase extraction and the new Turboflow chromatography online cleanup protocol (∼400 newborns per day). . 5-Plex protocola . 6-Plex protocol (TLX2 system) . Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Pompe, Fabry, and Krabbe disease . Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Pompe, Fabry, Krabbe, and MPS I disease . Day 1 Punching of DBS in duplicates (2 × 4 MTPs)b Punching of DBS in duplicates (2 × 4 MTPs) Reelute with 70 μL extraction buffer (first spot) Reelute with 70 μL extraction buffer (first spot) Incubate (1 h, 37 °C, 750 rpm) Incubate (1 h, 37 °C, 750 rpm) Incubation of 10-μL DBS extraction aliquots from first spot with 15 μL reaction cocktail, separately for ABG, ASM, GAA, and GLA Incubation of 10-μL DBS extraction aliquots from first spot with 15 μL reaction cocktail, separately for ABG, ASM, GAA, GLA, and IDUA Centrifuge all plates (1 min, 1000g) Centrifuge all plates (1 min, 1000g) Incubation of the second spot with 30 μL GALC reaction cocktail Incubation of the second spot with 30 μL GALC reaction cocktail Centrifuge (1 min, 1000g) Centrifuge (1 min, 1000g) Incubate (20–24 h, 37 °C, 250 rpm) Incubate (20–24 h, 37 °C, 250 rpm) Time: 2.7 h Time: 2.7 h Day 2 +100 μL 1:1 methanol/ethyl acetate +80 mL acetonitrile/19.8 mL water/0.2 mL FA to all GALC plates Transfer all corresponding specimens into 1 deep well MTP Shake GALC plate (10 min, 750 rpm) +400 μL ethyl acetate +100 μL 80:20 acetonitrile/water + 0.2% FA to all other plates +400 μL HPLC Water Transfer all corresponding specimens into 1 deep well MTP Shake (5 min, ∼500 rpm) Repeat this procedure for all 4 plates Centrifuge (∼3000g, 10 min) Centrifuge (∼3000g, 15 min) LLE; transfer into deep well MTP N2 dry (10–15 min) Reelute with 100 μL methanol/ethyl acetate SPE with silica gel N2 dry (20–25 min) Reelute with 50:50 acetonitrile/water MS analysis Repeat this procedure for all 4 plates MS analysis Total time: 4–5 h Total time: 50 min . 5-Plex protocola . 6-Plex protocol (TLX2 system) . Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Pompe, Fabry, and Krabbe disease . Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Pompe, Fabry, Krabbe, and MPS I disease . Day 1 Punching of DBS in duplicates (2 × 4 MTPs)b Punching of DBS in duplicates (2 × 4 MTPs) Reelute with 70 μL extraction buffer (first spot) Reelute with 70 μL extraction buffer (first spot) Incubate (1 h, 37 °C, 750 rpm) Incubate (1 h, 37 °C, 750 rpm) Incubation of 10-μL DBS extraction aliquots from first spot with 15 μL reaction cocktail, separately for ABG, ASM, GAA, and GLA Incubation of 10-μL DBS extraction aliquots from first spot with 15 μL reaction cocktail, separately for ABG, ASM, GAA, GLA, and IDUA Centrifuge all plates (1 min, 1000g) Centrifuge all plates (1 min, 1000g) Incubation of the second spot with 30 μL GALC reaction cocktail Incubation of the second spot with 30 μL GALC reaction cocktail Centrifuge (1 min, 1000g) Centrifuge (1 min, 1000g) Incubate (20–24 h, 37 °C, 250 rpm) Incubate (20–24 h, 37 °C, 250 rpm) Time: 2.7 h Time: 2.7 h Day 2 +100 μL 1:1 methanol/ethyl acetate +80 mL acetonitrile/19.8 mL water/0.2 mL FA to all GALC plates Transfer all corresponding specimens into 1 deep well MTP Shake GALC plate (10 min, 750 rpm) +400 μL ethyl acetate +100 μL 80:20 acetonitrile/water + 0.2% FA to all other plates +400 μL HPLC Water Transfer all corresponding specimens into 1 deep well MTP Shake (5 min, ∼500 rpm) Repeat this procedure for all 4 plates Centrifuge (∼3000g, 10 min) Centrifuge (∼3000g, 15 min) LLE; transfer into deep well MTP N2 dry (10–15 min) Reelute with 100 μL methanol/ethyl acetate SPE with silica gel N2 dry (20–25 min) Reelute with 50:50 acetonitrile/water MS analysis Repeat this procedure for all 4 plates MS analysis Total time: 4–5 h Total time: 50 min a Adapted from Zhang et al. (2). b MTP, 96-well microtiter plate; FA, formic acid; N2, nitrogen. Open in new tab Ultra-HPLC Transcend UHPLC systems (part of the TLX-2) with Allegro quaternary pumps were used (ThermoFisher Scientific). The mobile phases were A: 0.1 mL formic acid/0.01 mL trifluoroacetic acid/99.89 mL water; B: 0.1 mL formic acid/0.01 mL trifluoroacetic acid/99.89 mL acetonitrile; C: 45 mL isopropanol/45 mL acetonitrile/10 mL acetone; D: 80 mL acetonitrile/19.8 mL water/0.2 mL formic acid. Mobile phase C was used as a wash solvent and mobile phase D was used to prevent air bubbles in the pump system. The injection volume was 10 μL. The Transcend system employs 2 HPLCs and two 6-port valves per channel, which were configured in the standard focus mode (17). The online sample cleanup and separation performed by use of the TLX-Turboflow System was recently described by Kasper et al. (18). The cleanup and chromatographic sequence are described in detail in the online Supplementary Materials 1. MULTIPLEXED SAMPLE INTRODUCTION The total time for the multidimensional TurboFlow UHPLC experiment was 4 min. The analytes of interest emerged from the analytical column at around 2.15 min in a window that was 1.30-min wide. MS/MS data acquisition started 2.15 min after injection and continued for 1.3 min until all analyte signals were recorded (see Fig. 1). In the current experimental setup, a dual-channel TLX-2 system was used (2 TurboFlow and 2 analytical columns). We used staggered injections, so that while one sample was being cleaned up on the Turboflow column another was being chromatographed into the MS/MS analyzer. Hence, the effective analysis time for each sample was <2 min instead of the 4 min required if samples were run serially. Chromatogram including the retention time and peaks for substrates, products, and internal standards for all 6 lysosomal enzymes. Fig. 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Fig. 1. Open in new tabDownload slide MASS SPECTROMETRY MS was performed on a Thermo Scientific TSQ Quantum Ultra with an HESI-2 heated electrospray probe. We monitored single-reaction–monitoring transitions for the 6 products and their respective internal standards. A chromatogram that includes the retention and peaks for substrates, products, and internal standards for all 6 lysosomal enzymes is shown in Fig. 1. The MS settings for each compound of interest are provided in Table 2. In the final step, the amount of product was calculated from the ion abundance ratio of the product to the internal standard for a sample multiplied by the amount of added internal standard, time of incubation, and blood spot volume, according to the method reported by Li et al. (16). Blank values (obtained with extracts of 3.2-mm blood-free filter disks) were subtracted to give the final values of lysosomal enzyme activity. MS parameters. Table 2. MS parameters. MS parameters . . . . . Scan type Positive SRMa Ion spray voltage 3500 V Vaporizer temperature 350 °C Sheath gas pressure 60 arb Ion sweep gas pressure 2.0 arb Auxiliary gas pressure 35 arb Capillary temperature 250 °C Skimmer offset 0 V Collision gas pressure 0.4 mTorr Scan width 0.05 m/z Peak width (FWHM)     Q1 0.3 m/z     Q3 0.7 m/z Section 1 0.0–0.35 min Scan time 0.05 s/channel Enzymeb Precursorion, m/z Production, m/z Collision energy, V Tube lens, V IDUA 391.1 291.0 7 80 IDUA IS 377.2 277.1 7 80 GLA 484.3 233.3 28 103 GLA IS 489.3 238.3 25 104 GAA 498.3 247.3 25 96 GAA IS 503.3 252.3 26 97 Section 2 0.35–1.3 min Scan time 0.05 s/channel Enzyme Precursorion, m/z Production, m/z Collision energy, V Tube lens, V ABG 482.3 264.3 25 96 ABG IS 510.4 264.3 24 95 ASM 398.3 264.3 18 103 ASM IS 370.1 264.3 18 51 GALC 426.2 264.3 20 55 GALC IS 454.3 264.3 21 100 MS parameters . . . . . Scan type Positive SRMa Ion spray voltage 3500 V Vaporizer temperature 350 °C Sheath gas pressure 60 arb Ion sweep gas pressure 2.0 arb Auxiliary gas pressure 35 arb Capillary temperature 250 °C Skimmer offset 0 V Collision gas pressure 0.4 mTorr Scan width 0.05 m/z Peak width (FWHM)     Q1 0.3 m/z     Q3 0.7 m/z Section 1 0.0–0.35 min Scan time 0.05 s/channel Enzymeb Precursorion, m/z Production, m/z Collision energy, V Tube lens, V IDUA 391.1 291.0 7 80 IDUA IS 377.2 277.1 7 80 GLA 484.3 233.3 28 103 GLA IS 489.3 238.3 25 104 GAA 498.3 247.3 25 96 GAA IS 503.3 252.3 26 97 Section 2 0.35–1.3 min Scan time 0.05 s/channel Enzyme Precursorion, m/z Production, m/z Collision energy, V Tube lens, V ABG 482.3 264.3 25 96 ABG IS 510.4 264.3 24 95 ASM 398.3 264.3 18 103 ASM IS 370.1 264.3 18 51 GALC 426.2 264.3 20 55 GALC IS 454.3 264.3 21 100 a SRM, single-reaction monitoring; IS, internal standard; FWHM, full width at half maximum; arb, arbitrary units. b Enzyme names are representative for reaction products and corresponding internal standards, respectively. Open in new tab Table 2. MS parameters. MS parameters . . . . . Scan type Positive SRMa Ion spray voltage 3500 V Vaporizer temperature 350 °C Sheath gas pressure 60 arb Ion sweep gas pressure 2.0 arb Auxiliary gas pressure 35 arb Capillary temperature 250 °C Skimmer offset 0 V Collision gas pressure 0.4 mTorr Scan width 0.05 m/z Peak width (FWHM)     Q1 0.3 m/z     Q3 0.7 m/z Section 1 0.0–0.35 min Scan time 0.05 s/channel Enzymeb Precursorion, m/z Production, m/z Collision energy, V Tube lens, V IDUA 391.1 291.0 7 80 IDUA IS 377.2 277.1 7 80 GLA 484.3 233.3 28 103 GLA IS 489.3 238.3 25 104 GAA 498.3 247.3 25 96 GAA IS 503.3 252.3 26 97 Section 2 0.35–1.3 min Scan time 0.05 s/channel Enzyme Precursorion, m/z Production, m/z Collision energy, V Tube lens, V ABG 482.3 264.3 25 96 ABG IS 510.4 264.3 24 95 ASM 398.3 264.3 18 103 ASM IS 370.1 264.3 18 51 GALC 426.2 264.3 20 55 GALC IS 454.3 264.3 21 100 MS parameters . . . . . Scan type Positive SRMa Ion spray voltage 3500 V Vaporizer temperature 350 °C Sheath gas pressure 60 arb Ion sweep gas pressure 2.0 arb Auxiliary gas pressure 35 arb Capillary temperature 250 °C Skimmer offset 0 V Collision gas pressure 0.4 mTorr Scan width 0.05 m/z Peak width (FWHM)     Q1 0.3 m/z     Q3 0.7 m/z Section 1 0.0–0.35 min Scan time 0.05 s/channel Enzymeb Precursorion, m/z Production, m/z Collision energy, V Tube lens, V IDUA 391.1 291.0 7 80 IDUA IS 377.2 277.1 7 80 GLA 484.3 233.3 28 103 GLA IS 489.3 238.3 25 104 GAA 498.3 247.3 25 96 GAA IS 503.3 252.3 26 97 Section 2 0.35–1.3 min Scan time 0.05 s/channel Enzyme Precursorion, m/z Production, m/z Collision energy, V Tube lens, V ABG 482.3 264.3 25 96 ABG IS 510.4 264.3 24 95 ASM 398.3 264.3 18 103 ASM IS 370.1 264.3 18 51 GALC 426.2 264.3 20 55 GALC IS 454.3 264.3 21 100 a SRM, single-reaction monitoring; IS, internal standard; FWHM, full width at half maximum; arb, arbitrary units. b Enzyme names are representative for reaction products and corresponding internal standards, respectively. Open in new tab Results DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGH-THROUGHPUT HEXAPLEX SCREENING ASSAY FOR LSDs The multiplexed, multidimensional UHPLC MS/MS screening method was optimized (Table 2) without the need for time-consuming offline sample preparation such as LLE and SPE (see online Supplementary Material 1). The assays for Fabry, Gaucher, Niemann-Pick A/B, Pompe, Krabbe, and MPS I disease were less laborious, which led to time savings of 4–5 h per 400 samples on day 2 (Table 1). In a first pilot study, all 6 lysosomal enzyme activities for 8586 newborns and 51 patients with known LSDs were analyzed (Table 3). The cutoff values were chosen as ≤3.2 μmol · L−1 · h−1 for Gaucher, ≤0.9 μmol · L−1 · h−1 for Niemann Pick A/B, ≤3.3 μmol · L−1 · h−1 for Pompe, ≤2.9 μmol · L−1 · h−1 for Fabry, and ≤0.7 μmol · L−1 · h−1 for MPS I disease, respectively, according to the 0.1 percentile of the normal population. The cutoff for Krabbe disease was below 20% of the daily mean activity according to Orsini et al. (9). We did not observe any statistical difference in lysosomal enzyme activities between single and multiplex analysis with the use of the combined online sample cleanup and the separation of substrates and products with an analytical column (see online Supplemental Fig. 1). Enzymatic activities (μmol · L−1 · h−1) in affected patients and healthy controls determined by the Turboflow chromatography method. Table 3. Enzymatic activities (μmol · L−1 · h−1) in affected patients and healthy controls determined by the Turboflow chromatography method. . ABG . ASM . GAA . GLA . GALC . IDUA . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 13) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 1) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 12) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 22) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 1) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 2) . Mean 16.8 0.8 8.9 0.4 22.5 0.5 10 1.0 1.27 0.08 7.9 0.3 % Maximum activity of affected patients/mean of newborns activity — 13.1 — 4.5 — 6.2 — 22.0 — 6.31 — 5.1 Percentile 0.1% 3.2 0.2 0.9 0.4 3.3 0.2 2.9 0.3 0.04 0.08 0.7 0.2 Percentile 1.0% 4.6 0.2 2.5 0.4 6.2 0.2 3.0 0.3 0.14 0.08 1.5 0.2 Percentile 25% 11.7 0.2 5.8 0.4 15.3 0.4 5.5 0.5 0.43 0.08 5.2 0.2 Median 15.6 0.4 8.0 0.4 20.9 0.6 8.0 0.8 0.78 0.08 7.4 0.3 Percentile 75% 20.5 1.4 11.0 0.4 27.7 0.8 11.9 1.6 1.53 0.08 10.0 0.4 Percentile 99% 41.8 2.1 23.8 0.4 55.7 1.4 38.8 2.1 7.7 0.08 20.4 0.4 Percentile 99.9% 76.5 2.2 43.2 0.4 75.9 1.4 73.0 2.2 16.35 0.08 28.7 0.4 Minimum 2.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.3 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.02 0.08 0.2 0.2 Maximum 93.9 2.2 62.6 0.4 86.8 1.4 91.0 2.2 16.91 0.08 44.1 0.4 . ABG . ASM . GAA . GLA . GALC . IDUA . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 13) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 1) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 12) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 22) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 1) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 2) . Mean 16.8 0.8 8.9 0.4 22.5 0.5 10 1.0 1.27 0.08 7.9 0.3 % Maximum activity of affected patients/mean of newborns activity — 13.1 — 4.5 — 6.2 — 22.0 — 6.31 — 5.1 Percentile 0.1% 3.2 0.2 0.9 0.4 3.3 0.2 2.9 0.3 0.04 0.08 0.7 0.2 Percentile 1.0% 4.6 0.2 2.5 0.4 6.2 0.2 3.0 0.3 0.14 0.08 1.5 0.2 Percentile 25% 11.7 0.2 5.8 0.4 15.3 0.4 5.5 0.5 0.43 0.08 5.2 0.2 Median 15.6 0.4 8.0 0.4 20.9 0.6 8.0 0.8 0.78 0.08 7.4 0.3 Percentile 75% 20.5 1.4 11.0 0.4 27.7 0.8 11.9 1.6 1.53 0.08 10.0 0.4 Percentile 99% 41.8 2.1 23.8 0.4 55.7 1.4 38.8 2.1 7.7 0.08 20.4 0.4 Percentile 99.9% 76.5 2.2 43.2 0.4 75.9 1.4 73.0 2.2 16.35 0.08 28.7 0.4 Minimum 2.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.3 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.02 0.08 0.2 0.2 Maximum 93.9 2.2 62.6 0.4 86.8 1.4 91.0 2.2 16.91 0.08 44.1 0.4 Open in new tab Table 3. Enzymatic activities (μmol · L−1 · h−1) in affected patients and healthy controls determined by the Turboflow chromatography method. . ABG . ASM . GAA . GLA . GALC . IDUA . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 13) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 1) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 12) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 22) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 1) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 2) . Mean 16.8 0.8 8.9 0.4 22.5 0.5 10 1.0 1.27 0.08 7.9 0.3 % Maximum activity of affected patients/mean of newborns activity — 13.1 — 4.5 — 6.2 — 22.0 — 6.31 — 5.1 Percentile 0.1% 3.2 0.2 0.9 0.4 3.3 0.2 2.9 0.3 0.04 0.08 0.7 0.2 Percentile 1.0% 4.6 0.2 2.5 0.4 6.2 0.2 3.0 0.3 0.14 0.08 1.5 0.2 Percentile 25% 11.7 0.2 5.8 0.4 15.3 0.4 5.5 0.5 0.43 0.08 5.2 0.2 Median 15.6 0.4 8.0 0.4 20.9 0.6 8.0 0.8 0.78 0.08 7.4 0.3 Percentile 75% 20.5 1.4 11.0 0.4 27.7 0.8 11.9 1.6 1.53 0.08 10.0 0.4 Percentile 99% 41.8 2.1 23.8 0.4 55.7 1.4 38.8 2.1 7.7 0.08 20.4 0.4 Percentile 99.9% 76.5 2.2 43.2 0.4 75.9 1.4 73.0 2.2 16.35 0.08 28.7 0.4 Minimum 2.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.3 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.02 0.08 0.2 0.2 Maximum 93.9 2.2 62.6 0.4 86.8 1.4 91.0 2.2 16.91 0.08 44.1 0.4 . ABG . ASM . GAA . GLA . GALC . IDUA . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 13) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 1) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 12) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 22) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 1) . Newborns (n = 8586) . Affected patients (n = 2) . Mean 16.8 0.8 8.9 0.4 22.5 0.5 10 1.0 1.27 0.08 7.9 0.3 % Maximum activity of affected patients/mean of newborns activity — 13.1 — 4.5 — 6.2 — 22.0 — 6.31 — 5.1 Percentile 0.1% 3.2 0.2 0.9 0.4 3.3 0.2 2.9 0.3 0.04 0.08 0.7 0.2 Percentile 1.0% 4.6 0.2 2.5 0.4 6.2 0.2 3.0 0.3 0.14 0.08 1.5 0.2 Percentile 25% 11.7 0.2 5.8 0.4 15.3 0.4 5.5 0.5 0.43 0.08 5.2 0.2 Median 15.6 0.4 8.0 0.4 20.9 0.6 8.0 0.8 0.78 0.08 7.4 0.3 Percentile 75% 20.5 1.4 11.0 0.4 27.7 0.8 11.9 1.6 1.53 0.08 10.0 0.4 Percentile 99% 41.8 2.1 23.8 0.4 55.7 1.4 38.8 2.1 7.7 0.08 20.4 0.4 Percentile 99.9% 76.5 2.2 43.2 0.4 75.9 1.4 73.0 2.2 16.35 0.08 28.7 0.4 Minimum 2.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.3 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.02 0.08 0.2 0.2 Maximum 93.9 2.2 62.6 0.4 86.8 1.4 91.0 2.2 16.91 0.08 44.1 0.4 Open in new tab DETECTION OF AFFECTED PATIENTS WITH LSDs For method evaluation, we analyzed a total of 51 patients with known LSDs (12 patients with Pompe, 13 with Gaucher, 22 with Fabry, 1 with Niemann-Pick A/B, 1 with Krabbe, and 2 with MPS I disease). All disease control patients had diminished enzyme activities that showed little or no overlap with enzyme activity values obtained from the normal reference population (Table 3; also see online Supplemental Table 3). METHOD COMPARISON FOR THE KRABBE DISEASE ASSAY The GALC enzyme activities for 176 newborns were measured in parallel by the New York screening laboratory to evaluate the Turboflow assay (Table 4). The coefficient of determination (R2) between both methods was 0.79. The mean activity measured with the Turboflow assay was lower, but SDs and CVs were similar (Table 4). Both assays clearly differentiated the affected and nonaffected newborns. Parallel measurement results for Krabbe disease in 176 newborns by 2 screening laboratories. Table 4. Parallel measurement results for Krabbe disease in 176 newborns by 2 screening laboratories. Laboratorya . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . Specimen type . Newborns . Newborns . Affected patientsb . Affected patients . Mean ratios of product/internal standard 0.74 0.22 0.12 0.02 Mean activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 2.66 0.77 0.23 0.08 SD activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 0.05 0.01 CV 21.74 12.34 Minimum activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 0.69 0.17 0.19 0.07 Maxaximum activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 5.02 2.29 0.27 0.09 % Daily mean activity according to Orsini et al. (9) 5.50 6.31 Laboratorya . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . Specimen type . Newborns . Newborns . Affected patientsb . Affected patients . Mean ratios of product/internal standard 0.74 0.22 0.12 0.02 Mean activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 2.66 0.77 0.23 0.08 SD activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 0.05 0.01 CV 21.74 12.34 Minimum activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 0.69 0.17 0.19 0.07 Maxaximum activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 5.02 2.29 0.27 0.09 % Daily mean activity according to Orsini et al. (9) 5.50 6.31 a Laboratory 1: Albany, New York; laboratory 2: Austrian Newborn Screening Laboratory, Vienna, Austria. b 4 Replicates. Open in new tab Table 4. Parallel measurement results for Krabbe disease in 176 newborns by 2 screening laboratories. Laboratorya . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . Specimen type . Newborns . Newborns . Affected patientsb . Affected patients . Mean ratios of product/internal standard 0.74 0.22 0.12 0.02 Mean activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 2.66 0.77 0.23 0.08 SD activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 0.05 0.01 CV 21.74 12.34 Minimum activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 0.69 0.17 0.19 0.07 Maxaximum activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 5.02 2.29 0.27 0.09 % Daily mean activity according to Orsini et al. (9) 5.50 6.31 Laboratorya . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . Specimen type . Newborns . Newborns . Affected patientsb . Affected patients . Mean ratios of product/internal standard 0.74 0.22 0.12 0.02 Mean activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 2.66 0.77 0.23 0.08 SD activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 0.05 0.01 CV 21.74 12.34 Minimum activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 0.69 0.17 0.19 0.07 Maxaximum activity, μmol · L−1 h−1 5.02 2.29 0.27 0.09 % Daily mean activity according to Orsini et al. (9) 5.50 6.31 a Laboratory 1: Albany, New York; laboratory 2: Austrian Newborn Screening Laboratory, Vienna, Austria. b 4 Replicates. Open in new tab Discussion LSDs result in the accumulation of macromolecular substrates that would normally be degraded by lysosomal enzymes. The combined incidence has been estimated at 1 per 7700 live births for whites (21, 22). The relatively high combined incidence, availability of effective therapies for some of these diseases, and dire clinical outcomes for lack of timely treatment justify implementation of LSDs into routine NBS protocols. Substantial medical challenges still remain for the development of successful therapies for many of the other LSDs, as well as challenges regarding the availability of those therapies that are successful (23). The screening for several LSDs simultaneously in a single sample can be time-consuming, expensive, and work-intensive without the use of highly automated online systems. Current limitations include the requirement to perform LLE and SPE cleanup, and the use of hazardous reagents such as ethyl acetate (1,–,3). The introduction of online sample cleanup that uses multidimensional chromatography essentially eliminates the use of such organic compounds from the screening of LSDs by MS/MS (Table 1), and reduces the need for large amounts of consumables (see online Supplemental Material 2). The use of an analytical column in conjunction with an online cleanup column improves a multiplex approach by separating several enzymatic products from residual substrates. The first such protocol was described in a report by la Marca et al. (24), in which they suggested that online multidimensional HPLC sample preparation eliminated the need for laborious preanalytical steps with the use of a homebuilt multidimensional LC method in which a POROS cleanup column (Applied Biosystems) and an analytical C18 column were used. A similar protocol that included the use of a Turboflow cleanup column was recently reported by our group (18); this protocol was expanded to a hexaplex assay for the screening of MPS I in the present work. A serious problem with some published LSD assays is the potential for interference of the enzyme product signal from excess substrate due to insource fragmentation (14, 15). In these previous studies interference was minimized by either detuning the ion source, i.e., purposefully making the instrument less sensitive, or adding off-line cleanup steps such as SPE. We found that the use of an online analytical column in conjunction with the Turboflow online sample cleanup column, and the higher resolving powers of UHPLC, completely eliminated such interference while keeping the total analysis time to <2 min per sample and facilitated the expansion of the screening panel. This expansion has practical value because new substrates for the screening for MPS II, IVA, and VI are on the horizon (4,–,7). To illustrate this point, we integrated the screening of GALC activity with our published pentaplex assay (18) and evaluated the resulting GALC activities in collaboration with the New York screening laboratory by performing parallel measurements. Although our GALC enzyme activities were lower than those measured by the New York laboratory, we could clearly differentiate the affected Krabbe patient and healthy newborns [patient's GALC activity was below the cutoff for retesting of <12% according to Orsini et al. (9)]. The lower GALC activity might be due to slightly different sample workup. These preliminary results demonstrated that both assays are comparable, but further studies with more positive controls are required. We minimized a potential source of ion suppression and residual substrate interference due to insource fragmentation by using the analytical column to separate the substrate from the product. Other sources of ion suppression such as salt, proteins, and phospholipids were eliminated by using Turboflow chromatography (18). The purchase of a commercial 2-channel online sample cleanup system (TLX-2) is approximately €150 000, and screening for LSDs requires one additional mass spectrometer for the high-throughput analysis of approximately 100 000 samples per year. A detailed overview of cost calculations for both LLE and SPE screening and a Turboflow assay is provided in the online Supplementary Materials 2. The latter protocol has lower run-time costs (<€0.80) and fewer personnel requirements, and does not require the purchase of liquid-handling stations for automated processing of SPE. One limitation of the current protocol is the separate incubations on day 1, which require several additional microtiter plates and sample handling. However, Gelb et al. recently demonstrated that these preanalytical steps can be simplified by combining incubation buffers for Pompe, Fabry, and MPS I diseases; hence additional time and expenses for consumables can be saved (2). With a biochemical assay it is not possible to discriminate between pseudodeficiency genes that result in low enzyme activities and genes that lead to a severe phenotype. Prospective screening for LSDs has to be accompanied by genetic confirmatory testing [e.g., Krabbe screening in New York state (9)]. Results of this and other studies have demonstrated that enzymatic assays that use MS are robust and accurate for the detection of known symptomatic LSD patients (2, 11, 12). The rarity of some of these diseases will, however, necessitate more extensive population-based studies to accurately evaluate the true frequency of both false-negative and false-positive results that occur with the use of this biochemical screening approach. Quality of screening is an important issue, and hence certified substrates and QCs must be produced under good manufacturing practices with regulatory approvals. Quality assurance programs, e.g., the Newborn Screening Quality Assurance Program at the CDC (Atlanta, GA) provides QC standards that are essential to maintain a high quality of screening (25). Worldwide collaborative projects such as the Region 4 Stork website (http://www.region4genetics.org) are necessary to ensure safety and consistency of screening between states and even within countries (26). The availability of suitable treatments for some of these disorders has resulted in increased efforts to develop new, reliable, and robust methods that can be used to perform high-throughput population screening through established NBS programs worldwide. New protocols and technologies are now available that permit higher efficiency (2, 27, 28). Nonetheless, the current experience of nationwide screening for LSDs is limited. Several small pilot projects have been started, but whole-population LSD NBS has been implemented on a routine basis in only 2 jurisdictions. Screening for Pompe disease was introduced in Taiwan because of the high population prevalence of this disease (8), and screening for Krabbe disease was started in 2006 in New York state (29) because hematopoietic stem cell transplantation during the newborn stage demonstrated improved outcomes (30). We are faced with rapidly advancing technical possibilities and industry-driven development of enzyme replacement therapies that are still limited to just a small number of LSDs, a situation that is raising controversial discussions worldwide. These disorders were low-priority targets in the American College of Medical Genetics expert panel, in part because detection was not considered feasible, cost-effective, and simple (31). This viewpoint has changed owing to recent developments regarding high-throughput screening technologies (3, 27, 28) that allow simplified, less laborious, and more cost-effective (<€1 per sample) multiplex screening of several LSDs from a single blood spot. 7 Nonstandard abbreviations: MS/MS tandem mass spectrometry LSD lysosomal storage disorder MPS mucopolysaccharidosis LLE liquid-liquid extraction SPE solid-phase extraction Turboflow turbulent flow chromatography UHPLC ultra-HPLC DBS dried blood spots NBS newborn screening ABG acid β-glucocerebrosidase GLA α-galactosidase GAA α-glucosidase ASM acid sphingomyelinase GALC galactocerebrosidase DUA iduronidase. " Author Contributions:All authors confirmed they have contributed to the intellectual content of this paper and have met the following 3 requirements: (a) significant contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (b) drafting or revising the article for intellectual content; and (c) final approval of the published article. " Authors' Disclosures or Potential Conflicts of Interest:Upon manuscript submission, all authors completed the Disclosures of Potential Conflict of Interest form. Potential conflicts of interest: " Employment or Leadership: None declared. " Consultant or Advisory Role: B. Shushan, Thermo Scientific. " Stock Ownership: None declared. " Honoraria: None declared. " Research Funding: Grant from the Austrian Ministry of Health (GZ 20.501/40-IV/A/2007). " Expert Testimony: None declared. " Role of Sponsor: The funding organizations played no role in the design of study, choice of enrolled patients, review and interpretation of data, or preparation or approval of manuscript. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to Joseph DiBussolo and Jeffrey Zonderman of Thermo Scientific for support and technical assistance with mass spectrometry, Hui Zhui and Victor de Jesus of the CDC, and Joan Keutzer of Genzyme. References 1. Li Y , Scott CR, Chamoles NA, Ghavami A, Pinto BM, Turecek F, Gelb MH. Direct multiplex assay of lysosomal enzymes in dried blood spots for newborn screening . Clin Chem 2004 ; 50 : 1785 – 96 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 2. Duffey TA , Bellamy G, Elliott S, Fox AC, Glass M, Turecek F et al. A tandem mass spectrometry triplex assay for the detection of Fabry, Pompe, and mucopolysaccharidosis-I (Hurler) . Clin Chem 2010 ; 56 ( 12 ): 1854 – 61 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 3. Zhang XK , Elbin CS, Chuang WL, Cooper SK, Marashio CA, Beauregard C, Keutzer JM. Multiplex enzyme assay screening of dried blood spots for lysosomal storage disorders by using tandem mass spectrometry . Clin Chem 2008 ; 54 : 1725 – 8 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 4. Duffey TA , Sadilek M, Scott CR, Turecek F, Gelb MH. Tandem mass spectrometry for the direct assay of lysosomal enzymes in dried blood spots: application to screening newborns for mucopolysaccharidosis VI (Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome) . Anal Chem 2010 ; 82 : 9587 – 91 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 5. Khaliq T , Sadilek M, Scott CR, Turecek F, Gelb MH. Tandem mass spectrometry for the direct assay of lysosomal enzymes in dried blood spots: application to screening newborns for mucopolysaccharidosis IVA . Clin Chem 2010 ; 57 ( 1 ): 128 – 31 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 6. Wang D , Eadala B, Sadilek M, Chamoles NA, Turecek F, Scott CR, Gelb MH. Tandem mass spectrometric analysis of dried blood spots for screening of mucopolysaccharidosis I in newborns . Clin Chem 2005 ; 51 : 898 – 900 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 7. Wang D , Wood T, Sadilek M, Scott CR, Turecek F, Gelb MH. Tandem mass spectrometry for the direct assay of enzymes in dried blood spots: application to newborn screening for mucopolysaccharidosis II (Hunter disease) . Clin Chem 2007 ; 53 : 137 – 40 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 8. Chien YH , Chiang SC, Zhang XK, Keutzer J, Lee NC, Huang AC et al. Early detection of Pompe disease by newborn screening is feasible: results from the Taiwan screening program . Pediatrics 2008 ; 122 : e39 – 45 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 9. Orsini JJ , Morrissey MA, Slavin LN, Wojcik M, Biski C, Martin M et al. Implementation of newborn screening for Krabbe disease: population study and cutoff determination . Clin Biochem 2009 ; 42 : 877 – 84 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 10. Zhou H , Fernhoff P, Vogt RF. Newborn bloodspot screening for lysosomal storage disorders . J Pediatr 2011 ; 159 ( 1 ): 7 – 13 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 11. Dajnoki A , Fekete G, Keutzer J, Orsini JJ, De Jesus VR, Chien YH et al. Newborn screening for Fabry disease by measuring GLA activity using tandem mass spectrometry . Clin Chim Acta 2010 ; 411 : 1428 – 31 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 12. Dajnoki A , Muhl A, Fekete G, Keutzer J, Orsini J, Dejesus V et al. Newborn screening for Pompe disease by measuring acid alpha-glucosidase activity using tandem mass spectrometry . Clin Chem 2008 ; 54 : 1624 – 9 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 13. Legini E , Orsini JJ, Hung C, Martin M, Showers A, Scarpa M et al. Analysis of glucocerebrosidase activity in dry blood spots using tandem mass spectrometry . Clin Chim Acta 2010 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 14. Annesley T , Majzoub J, Hsing A, Wu A, Rockwood A, Mason D. Mass spectrometry in the clinical laboratory: how have we done, and where do we need to be? Clin Chem 2009 ; 55 : 1236 – 9 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 15. Shushan B . A review of clinical diagnostic applications of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry . Mass Spectrom Rev 2010 ; 29 : 930 – 44 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 16. Li Y , Brockmann K, Turecek F, Scott CR, Gelb MH. Tandem mass spectrometry for the direct assay of enzymes in dried blood spots: application to newborn screening for Krabbe disease . Clin Chem 2004 ; 50 : 638 – 40 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 17. Grant RP , Cameron C, Mackenzie-McMurter S. Generic serial and parallel on-line direct-injection using turbulent flow liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry . Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 2002 ; 16 : 1785 – 92 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 18. Kasper DC , Herman J, De Jesus VR, Mechtler TP, Metz TF, Shushan B. The application of multiplexed, multi-dimensional ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry to the high-throughput screening of lysosomal storage disorders in newborn dried bloodspots . Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 2010 ; 24 : 986 – 94 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 19. Kasper DC , Ratschmann R, Metz TF, Mechtler TP, Moslinger D, Konstantopoulou V et al. The National Austrian Newborn Screening Program: eight years experience with mass spectrometry . Past, present, and future goals. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2010 ; 122 : 607 – 13 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 20. Blanchard S , Sadilek M, Scott CR, Turecek F, Gelb MH. Tandem mass spectrometry for the direct assay of lysosomal enzymes in dried blood spots: application to screening newborns for mucopolysaccharidosis I . Clin Chem 2008 ; 54 : 2067 – 70 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 21. Meikle PJ , Hopwood JJ, Clague AE, Carey WF. Prevalence of lysosomal storage disorders . JAMA 1999 ; 281 : 249 – 54 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 22. Wenger DA , Coppola S, Liu SL. Insights into the diagnosis and treatment of lysosomal storage diseases . Arch Neurol 2003 ; 60 : 322 – 8 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 23. Beck M . Therapy for lysosomal storage disorders . IUBMB Life 2010 ; 62 : 33 – 40 . Google Scholar PubMed OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 24. la Marca G , Casetta B, Malvagia S, Guerrini R, Zammarchi E. New strategy for the screening of lysosomal storage disorders: the use of the online trapping-and-cleanup liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry . Anal Chem 2009 ; 81 : 6113 – 21 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 25. De Jesus VR , Zhang XK, Keutzer J, Bodamer OA, Muhl A, Orsini JJ et al. Development and evaluation of quality control dried blood spot materials in newborn screening for lysosomal storage disorders . Clin Chem 2009 ; 55 : 158 – 64 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 26. McHugh DMS . Clinical validation of cutoff target ranges in newborn screening of metabolic disorders by tandem mass spectrometry: a worldwide collaborative project . Genet Med 2011 ; 13 : 230 – 54 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 27. Kasper DC , Iqbal F, Dvorakova L, Zeman J, Magner M, Bodamer O et al. Rapid and accurate denaturating high performance liquid chromatography protocol for the detection of alpha-l-iduronidase mutations causing mucopolysaccharidosis type I . Clin Chim Acta 2010 ; 411 : 345 – 50 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 28. Millington DS , Sista R, Eckhardt A, Rouse J, Bali D, Goldberg R et al. Digital microfluidics: a future technology in the newborn screening laboratory? Semin Perinatol 2010 ; 34 : 163 – 9 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 29. Duffner PK , Caggana M, Orsini JJ, Wenger DA, Patterson MC, Crosley CJ et al. Newborn screening for Krabbe disease: the New York State model . Pediatr Neurol 40 : 245 – 52 , 2009 ; discussion 53–5 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 30. Escolar ML , Poe MD, Provenzale JM, Richards KC, Allison J, Wood S et al. Transplantation of umbilical-cord blood in babies with infantile Krabbe's disease . N Engl J Med 2005 ; 352 : 2069 – 81 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 31. Dietzen DJ , Rinaldo P, Whitley RJ, Rhead WJ, Hannon WH, Garg UC et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines: follow-up testing for metabolic disease identified by expanded newborn screening using tandem mass spectrometry; executive summary . Clin Chem 2009 ; 55 : 1615 – 26 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Author notes † " Thomas F. Metz and Thomas P. Mechtler contributed equally to the work, and both should be considered as first authors. © 2011 The American Association for Clinical Chemistry This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Simplified Newborn Screening Protocol for Lysosomal Storage Disorders
JF - Clinical Chemistry
DO - 10.1373/clinchem.2011.164640
DA - 2011-09-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/simplified-newborn-screening-protocol-for-lysosomal-storage-disorders-xWxNgQn4Eu
SP - 1286
VL - 57
IS - 9
DP - DeepDyve
ER -