Please wait a minute...
文章检索
预防医学  2026, Vol. 38 Issue (8): 840-843    DOI: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2026.08.019
  卫生理化检验新技术新方法专题 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
液相色谱-串联质谱法鉴定米酵菌酸中毒生物标志物
徐小民1,2,3, 安雨馨1,2,3, 徐美佳3, 许娇娇1,2,3, 蔡增轩1,2,3, 韩见龙1,2,3
1.浙江省疾病预防控制中心国家卫生健康委员会食品安全风险评估与标准研制特色实验室,浙江 杭州 310051;
2.浙江省疾病预防控制中心全省公共卫生检测与病原学研究重点实验室,浙江 杭州 310051;
3.浙江省疾病预防控制中心,浙江 杭州 310051
Identification of biomarkers for bongkrekic acid poisoning by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
XU Xiaomin1,2,3, AN Yuxin1,2,3, XU Meijia3, XU Jiaojiao1,2,3, CAI Zengxuan1,2,3, HAN Jianlong1,2,3
1. NHC Specialty Laboratory of Food Safety Risk Assessment and Standard Development, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310051, China;
2. Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Public Health Detection and Pathogenesis Research, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310051, China;
3. Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310051, China
全文: PDF(881 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 目的 探究米酵菌酸在血浆、血清和尿液中的分布与代谢特征,明确米酵菌酸中毒生物标志物,为开展病因鉴定和治疗效果评价提供依据。方法 血液样本离心分离血浆或血清后冷冻保存,尿液直接冷冻保存;样品复融后加内标使用液和0.5%甲酸乙腈溶液处理,离心过滤后待测。采用C18色谱柱梯度洗脱,电喷雾离子源负离子多反应监测模式,设置离子对参数检测米酵菌酸。计算基质效应、线性范围、相关系数(R2)、检出限、定量限、平均加标回收率和相对标准偏差(RSD)评价该方法。采用液相色谱-串联质谱法测定3种样本中米酵菌酸分布及质量浓度,分析其代谢特征。结果 米酵菌酸在血浆、血清和尿液中的基质效应分别为86.8%、88.1%和93.3%。方法学验证结果显示,米酵菌酸在0.2~100 ng/mL范围内线性关系良好,R2为0.999,检出限和定量限分别为1.0和2.0 ng/mL,无杂峰干扰,平均加标回收率介于92.1%~104.0%之间,RSD介于2.9%~6.8%之间。12例米酵菌酸中毒患者中,8例患者中毒1~14 d内的血浆和血清中米酵菌酸质量浓度分别为168.0~967.0 ng/mL和163.0~1 017.0 ng/mL,平均质量浓度占比分别为50.3%和49.7%;其中2例患者经血浆置换后米酵菌酸质量浓度整体下降。结论 血浆或血清中的米酵菌酸可以作为其中毒和治疗效果评估的有效生物标志物。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
徐小民
安雨馨
徐美佳
许娇娇
蔡增轩
韩见龙
关键词 米酵菌酸食源性疾病生物标志物液相色谱-串联质谱法    
AbstractObjective To explore the distribution and metabolic characteristics of bongkrekic acid in plasma, serum and urine, and to identify potential biomarkers for bongkrekic acid poisoning, so as to provide evidence for etiological identification and therapeutic effect evaluation. Methods Blood samples were centrifuged to separate plasma or serum and then stored frozen, while urine samples were directly frozen for preservation. After thawing, the samples were treated with internal standard working solution and 0.5% formic acid acetonitrile solution, and detected after centrifugation and filtration. A C18 chromatographic column with gradient elution was adopted, and electrospray ionization in negative multiple reaction monitoring mode was used with optimized ion pair parameters for the determination of bongkrekic acid. The method was evaluated in terms of matrix effect, linear range, coefficient of determination (R2), limit of detection, limit of quantification, average spiked recovery rate, and relative standard deviation (RSD). Determination of the distribution and mass concentration of bongkrekic acid in three types of samples by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, and analysis of its metabolic characteristics. Results The matrix effects of bongkrekic acid in plasma, serum and urine were 86.8%, 88.1% and 93.3%, respectively. The results of methodological validation demonstrated that bongkrekic acid exhibited good linearity within the concentration range of 0.2-100 ng/mL, with R2 of 0.999. The limit of detection and limit of quantification were determined to be 1.0 ng/mL and 2.0 ng/mL, respectively. No interfering peaks were observed in the chromatograms. The average spiked recovery rates ranged from 92.1% to 104.0%, with RSD ranging from 2.9% to 6.8%. Among the 12 patients with bongkrekic acid poisoning, the mass concentrations of bongkrekic acid in plasma and serum from 8 patients within 1-14 days of poisoning ranged from 168.0 to 967.0 ng/mL and from 163.0 to 1 017.0 ng/mL, respectively, with average mass concentration proportions of 50.3% and 49.7%, respectively. Among them, bongkrekic acid mass concentration decreased overall in 2 patients after plasma exchange treatment. Conclusion Bongkrekic acid in plasma or serum can serve as an effective biomarker for poisoning diagnosis and therapeutic effect evaluation of bongkrekic acid poisoning.
Key wordsbongkrekic acid    foodborne diseases    biomarker    liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
收稿日期: 2026-04-27      修回日期: 2026-07-24      出版日期: 2026-08-10
中图分类号:  R155.3  
作者简介: 徐小民,博士,主任技师,主要从事食品安全理化检验和中毒病因鉴定工作
通信作者: 韩见龙,E-mail:jlhan@cdc.zj.cn   
引用本文:   
徐小民, 安雨馨, 徐美佳, 许娇娇, 蔡增轩, 韩见龙. 液相色谱-串联质谱法鉴定米酵菌酸中毒生物标志物[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(8): 840-843.
XU Xiaomin, AN Yuxin, XU Meijia, XU Jiaojiao, CAI Zengxuan, HAN Jianlong. Identification of biomarkers for bongkrekic acid poisoning by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Preventive Medicine, 2026, 38(8): 840-843.
链接本文:  
https://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2026.08.019      或      https://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/Y2026/V38/I8/840
[1] Li M M,Xiong K,Jin W,et al.Prediction of the ecological behavior of Burkholderia gladiolus in fresh wet rice noodles at different temperatures and its correlation with quality changes[J/OL].Foods,2025,14(8)[2026-07-24].http://doi.org/10.3390/foods14081291.
[2] Yuan M D,Han R W,Bai L,et al.Recent advances in the characterization of Bburkholderia gladioli pv. cocovenenans and its toxin production[J].Food Rev Int,2024,40(3):867-882.
[3] Deshpande S S.Bacterial toxins,Handbook of food toxicology[M].Boca Raton:Taylor & Francis Group,2002.
[4] Zhang H X,Guo Y C,Chen L L,et al.Epidemiology of foodborne bongkrekic acid poisoning outbreaks in China,2010 to 2020[J/OL].PLoS One,2023,18(1)[2026-07-24].http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279957.
[5] 韩海红,寇柏洋,马洁,等.2018年中国大陆食源性疾病暴发监测资料分析[J].中国食品卫生杂志,2022,34(4):822-829.
[6] Sun X F,Yang H Y,Zhang Y Z,et al.Study on the modification and minding mechanism of bongkrekic acid aptamers for food safety[J/OL].Foods,2026,15(10)[2026-07-24].http://doi.org/10.3390/foods15101663.
[7] Shieh Y T,Weng T I,Chen J Y,et al.Development and validation of an analytical method for determination of bongkrekic acid in biofluids for toxin monitoring[J].J Food Drug Anal,2025,33(3):339-347.
[8] 方力,邱凤梅.稳定同位素稀释-液相色谱-串联质谱法快速检测血浆和尿液中米酵菌酸和异米酵菌酸[J].分析化学,2022,50(4):634-642.
[9] 张秀尧,蔡欣欣,张晓艺,等.超高效液相色谱-三重四极杆质谱联用法测定血浆和尿液中米酵菌酸和异米酵菌酸[J].质谱学报,2020,41(3):268-277.
[10] 徐小民,陈苘,黄百芬,等.液相色谱-串联质谱法测定食源性中毒患者血浆中米酵菌酸[J].预防医学,2019,31(12):1905-1909.
[11] 孙承业. 中毒事件处置 [M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2013.
[12] Yang H,Zhao L J,Duan M J,et al.Bongkrekic acid poisoning associated with Burkholderia gladioli:a systematic review[J/OL].Foodborne Pathog Dis,2026[2026-07-24].http://doi.org/10.1177/15353141251413448.
[13] Gao B,Deng H T,Wang Y H,et al.Detection methods and control measures of Burkholderia gladioli and its toxins:a review[J/OL].J Food Sci,2025,90(2)[2026-07-24].http://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.17668.
[1] 吴昊, 徐美佳, 许娇娇, 安雨馨, 韩见龙, 徐小民. 液相色谱-串联质谱法检测婴幼儿食品3种莨菪烷生物碱[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(8): 849-853.
[2] 王恒, 马小龙. 超高效液相色谱-串联质谱法检测人体尿液11种甾体类激素[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(8): 854-858,864.
[3] 羊娜, 羊秋榕, 刘慧媚, 李汝元, 刘嘉, 羊初爱, 符传桃. 儋州市食源性疾病沙门菌血清型和耐药分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(7): 714-716,721.
[4] 吕恭进, 杨辰, 杨扬, 申屠平平. 金华市食源性疾病病例沙门菌感染特征分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(5): 532-535,540.
[5] 王爱红, 李晓海, 金米聪. 职业性苯暴露氧化损伤机制及其生物标志物研究进展[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(2): 149-155.
[6] 俞雅沁, 赵丽, 谢臻蔚. 女性盆底功能障碍性疾病评估研究进展[J]. 预防医学, 2025, 37(8): 794-798.
[7] 周珊慧, 胡玉琴, 郑琼琼, 王晓红, 李毅, 项光新. 龙湾区食源性疾病沙门菌血清型及耐药性分析[J]. 预防医学, 2025, 37(7): 697-700,704.
[8] 宋和佳, 孙炀明, 贾娟娟, 林云. 热浪对食源性疾病发病的影响[J]. 预防医学, 2025, 37(7): 673-676,681.
[9] 蔺洁, 徐曼, 拜地努尔·克爱里木, 张伟文, 刘佳, 彭诚. 克拉玛依市食源性疾病监测结果[J]. 预防医学, 2024, 36(2): 159-161,172.
[10] 高何刚, 林益炜, 高源, 徐来潮. 非衍生化-PriME净化的超高效液相色谱-串联质谱法检测黄酒9种生物胺[J]. 预防医学, 2024, 36(1): 86-88, 90.
[11] 徐杰, 陈棕棕, 骆水娟, 李欢龙. 富阳区市售食品食源性致病菌监测结果[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(7): 624-627.
[12] 邢超, 王琦梅, 任蒋磊, 陈吉铭, 何琴芬, 蒋卓婧. 2012—2022年绍兴市食源性疾病暴发事件流行特征分析[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(6): 506-508,513.
[13] 李启, 刘慧慧, 纪律, 徐峻卿. 超高效液相色谱-串联三重四级杆质谱法快速测定尿液中4种除草剂[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(2): 176-179.
[14] 张玉俊, 王岩, 地力亚尔·吾斯曼江, 刘广超, 聂艳武, 朱琳. 应用生物信息学方法鉴定食管鳞状细胞癌生物标志物[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(9): 906-913.
[15] 许娇娇, 蔡增轩, 王军淋, 徐美佳, 黄百芬. 新鲜水果真菌毒素多组分检测方法研究[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(6): 555-560.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed