Use of lignin extracted from different plant sources as standards in the spectrophotometric acetyl bromide lignin method

A nongravimetric acetyl bromide lignin (ABL) method was evaluated to quantify lignin concentration in a variety of plant materials. The traditional approach to lignin quantification required extraction of lignin with acidic dioxane and its isolation from each plant sample to construct a standard curve via spectrophotometric analysis. Lignin concentration was then measured in pre-extracted plant cell walls. However, this presented a methodological complexity because extraction and isolation procedures are lengthy and tedious, particularly if there are many samples involved. This work was targeted to simplify lignin quantification. Our hypothesis was that any lignin, regardless of its botanical origin, could be used to construct a standard curve for the purpose of determining lignin concentration in a variety of plants. To test our hypothesis, lignins were isolated from a range of diverse plants and, along with three commercial lignins, standard curves were built and compared among them. Slopes and intercepts derived from these standard curves were close enough to allow utilization of a mean extinction coefficient in the regression equation to estimate : lignin concentration in any plant, independent of its botanical origin. Lignin quantification by use of a common regression equation obviates the steps of lignin extraction, isolation, and standard curve construction, which substantially expedites the ABL method. Acetyl bromide lignin method is a fast, convenient analytical procedure that may routinely be used to quantify lignin.

Evaluation of short dietary questions from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey

Six of the short dietary questions used in the 1995 National Nutrition Survey (see box below) were evaluated for relative validity both directly and indirectly and for consistency, by documenting the differences in mean intakes of foods and nutrients as measured on the 24-hour recall, between groups with different responses to the short questions. 1. Including snacks, how many times do you usually have something to eat in a day including evenings? 2. How many days per week do you usually have something to eat for breakfast? 3. In the last 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy more? 4. What type of milk do you usually consume? 5. How many serves of vegetables do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1/2 cup cooked vegetables or 1 cup of salad vegetables) 6. How many serves of fruit do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1 medium piece or 2 small pieces of fruit or 1 cup of diced pieces) These comparisons were made for males and females overall and for population sub-groups of interest including: age, socio-economic disadvantage, region of residence, country of birth, and BMI category. Several limitations to this evaluation of the short questions, as discussed in the report, need to be kept in mind including: · The method for comparison available (24-hour recall) was not ideal (gold standard); as it measures yesterday’s intake. This limitation was overcome by examining only mean differences between groups of respondents, since mean intake for a group can provide a reasonable approximation for ‘usual’ intake. · The need to define and identify, post-hoc, from the 24-hour recall the number of eating occasions, and occasions identified by the respondents as breakfast. · Predetermined response categories for some of the questions effectively limited the number of categories available for evaluation. · Other foods and nutrients, not selected for this evaluation, may have an indirect relationship with the question, and might have shown stronger and more consistent responses. · The number of responses in some categories of the short questions eg for food security may have been too small to detect significant differences between population sub-groups. · No information was available to examine the validity of these questions for detecting differences over time (establishing trends) in food habits and indicators of selected nutrient intakes. By contrast, the strength of this evaluation was its very large sample size, (atypical of most validation studies of dietary assessment) and thus, the opportunity to investigate question performance in a range of broad population sub-groups compared with a well-conducted, quantified survey of intakes. The results of the evaluation are summarised below for each of the questions and specific recommendations for future testing, modifications and use provided for each question. The report concludes with some general recommendations for the further development and evaluation of short dietary questions.

LC-MS/MS quantitation of plasma progesterone in cattle

Quantitation of progesterone (P(4)) in biological fluids is often performed by radioimmunoassay (RIA), whereas liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) has been used much less often. Due to its autoconfirmatory nature, LC-MS/MS greatly minimizes false positives and interference. Herein we report and compare with RIA an optimized LC-MS/MS method for rapid, efficient, and cost-effective quantitation of P(4) in plasma of cattle with no sample derivatization. The quantitation of plasma P(4) released from three nonbiodegradable, commercial, intravaginal P(4)-releasing devices (IPRD) over 192 h in six ovariectomized cows was compared in a pairwise study as a test case. Both techniques showed similar P(4) kinetics (P > 0.05) whereas results of P(4) quantitation by RIA were consistently higher compared with LC-MS/MS (P < 0.05) due to interference and matrix effects. The LC-MS/MS method was validated according to the recommended analytical standards and displayed P(4) limits of detection (LOD) and quantitation (LOQ) of 0.08 and a 0.25 ng/mL, respectively. The high selective LC-MS/MS method proposed herein for P(4) quantitation eliminates the risks associated with radioactive handling; it also requires no sample derivatization, which is a common requirement for LC-MS/MS quantitation of steroid hormones. Its application to multisteroid assays is also viable, and it is envisaged that it may provide a gold standard technique for hormone quantitation in animal reproductive science studies. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.