Wipe sampling procedure coupled to LC-MS/MS analysis for the simultaneous determination of 10 cytotoxic drugs on different surfaces.

A simple wipe sampling procedure was developed for the surface contamination determination of ten cytotoxic drugs: cytarabine, gemcitabine, methotrexate, etoposide phosphate, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, irinotecan, doxorubicin, epirubicin and vincristine. Wiping was performed using Whatman filter paper on different surfaces such as stainless steel, polypropylene, polystyrol, glass, latex gloves, computer mouse and coated paperboard. Wiping and desorption procedures were investigated: The same solution containing 20% acetonitrile and 0.1% formic acid in water gave the best results. After ultrasonic desorption and then centrifugation, samples were analysed by a validated liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in selected reaction monitoring mode. The whole analytical strategy from wipe sampling to LC-MS/MS analysis was evaluated to determine quantitative performance. The lowest limit of quantification of 10 ng per wiping sample (i.e. 0.1 ng cm(-2)) was determined for the ten investigated cytotoxic drugs. Relative standard deviation for intermediate precision was always inferior to 20%. As recovery was dependent on the tested surface for each drug, a correction factor was determined and applied for real samples. The method was then successfully applied at the cytotoxic production unit of the Geneva University Hospitals pharmacy.

A comparative phenotypic and genomic analysis of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N mouse strains.

BACKGROUND: The mouse inbred line C57BL/6J is widely used in mouse genetics and its genome has been incorporated into many genetic reference populations. More recently large initiatives such as the International Knockout Mouse Consortium (IKMC) are using the C57BL/6N mouse strain to generate null alleles for all mouse genes. Hence both strains are now widely used in mouse genetics studies. Here we perform a comprehensive genomic and phenotypic analysis of the two strains to identify differences that may influence their underlying genetic mechanisms. RESULTS: We undertake genome sequence comparisons of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N to identify SNPs, indels and structural variants, with a focus on identifying all coding variants. We annotate 34 SNPs and 2 indels that distinguish C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N coding sequences, as well as 15 structural variants that overlap a gene. In parallel we assess the comparative phenotypes of the two inbred lines utilizing the EMPReSSslim phenotyping pipeline, a broad based assessment encompassing diverse biological systems. We perform additional secondary phenotyping assessments to explore other phenotype domains and to elaborate phenotype differences identified in the primary assessment. We uncover significant phenotypic differences between the two lines, replicated across multiple centers, in a number of physiological, biochemical and behavioral systems. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N demonstrates a range of phenotypic differences that have the potential to impact upon penetrance and expressivity of mutational effects in these strains. Moreover, the sequence variants we identify provide a set of candidate genes for the phenotypic differences observed between the two strains.