Analytic validation of a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method for quantification of six amino acids in canine serum samples.

OBJECTIVE To analytically validate a gas concentration of chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) method for measurement of 6 amino acids in canine serum samples and to assess the stability of each amino acid after sample storage. SAMPLES Surplus serum from 80 canine samples submitted to the Gastrointestinal Laboratory at Texas A&M University and serum samples from 12 healthy dogs. PROCEDURES GC-MS was validated to determine precision, reproducibility, limit of detection, and percentage recovery of known added concentrations of 6 amino acids in surplus serum samples. Amino acid concentrations in serum samples from healthy dogs were measured before (baseline) and after storage in various conditions. RESULTS Intra- and interassay coefficients of variation (10 replicates involving 12 pooled serum samples) were 13.4% and 16.6% for glycine, 9.3% and 12.4% for glutamic acid, 5.1% and 6.3% for methionine, 14.0% and 15.1% for tryptophan, 6.2% and 11.0% for tyrosine, and 7.4% and 12.4% for lysine, respectively. Observed-to-expected concentration ratios in dilutional parallelism tests (6 replicates involving 6 pooled serum samples) were 79.5% to 111.5% for glycine, 80.9% to 123.0% for glutamic acid, 77.8% to 111.0% for methionine, 85.2% to 98.0% for tryptophan, 79.4% to 115.0% for tyrosine, and 79.4% to 110.0% for lysine. No amino acid concentration changed significantly from baseline after serum sample storage at -80°C for ≤ 7 days. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE GC-MS measurement of concentration of 6 amino acids in canine serum samples yielded precise, accurate, and reproducible results. Sample storage at -80°C for 1 week had no effect on GC-MS results.

Explication as a Method of Conceptual Re-engineering

Taking Carnap’s classic exposition as a starting point, this paper develops a pragmatic account of the method of explication, defends it against a range of challenges and proposes a detailed recipe for the practice of explicating. It is then argued that confusions are involved in characterizing explications as definitions, and in advocating precising definitions as an alternative to explications. Explication is better characterized as conceptual re-engineering for theoretical purposes, in contrast to conceptual re-engineering for other purposes and improving exactness for purely practical reasons. Finally, three limitations which call for further development of the method of explication are discussed.