Murine models have been utilized extensively in brain research1. Genotype-phenotype correlations have been investigated in mouse and rat brains by studying gene expression at the RNA and/or protein levels on the one hand, and morphological, functional, electrophysiological and/or behavioral phenotypes on the other2-6. However, to completely understand the mechanisms linking phenotype to genotype, it is imperative to investigate the molecular events downstream of protein expression, i.e. the metabolism of the biochemical substrates upon which enzymes act7. This requirement led, over the past 10 to 15 years, to a renaissance of metabolic research in many branches of biology8,9. While classical metabolic studies have often been focused on details of specific pathways, the new metabolomic approach is geared towards an all-encompassing investigation of the global metabolic profile of the tissue under consideration. One consequence of this concept is an obvious need for analytical tools that minimize bias towards specific metabolic pathways and/or classes of compounds. However, a classical biochemical assay is based on a particular chemical reaction of a specific analyte that needs to be specified before the assay is performed. By contrast, spectroscopic techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and mass spectrometry (MS) (i) are based on particular molecular (physical) properties of biochemical compounds, each of which gives rise to one or several distinct signals in a spectrum detected in the course of one experiment; and (ii) detect a large number of different compounds per experiment.
Thus, each spectrum contains the combined information of a whole range of metabolites. For this reason, spectroscopic methods are adequate tools for metabolomics, as no prior selection needs to be made regarding the nature of the analyte to be measured8. As a consequence, these techniques naturally lend themselves to exploratory studies because they greatly facilitate the detection of unexpected metabolic changes.
Although NMR spectroscopy and MS can be used interchangeably for the analysis of many metabolites, each method possesses specific advantages and disadvantages that have recently been reviewed10. Briefly, NMR spectroscopy can usually be performed from crude extracts and does not require chromatographic separation of sample compounds before analysis. By contrast, MS works with gas or liquid chromatography (GC or LC) separation, except for particular recent developments such as mass spectrometry imaging. In a few special cases such as the analysis of sugars, LC separation may become a necessity for NMR spectroscopy as well, because the resonance lines of different sugars overlap significantly in proton (1H) NMR spectra. Nevertheless, 1H NMR spectroscopy without chromatographic separation remains the most popular, almost universally applied metabolomic NMR method. Generally, sample preparation is more time-consuming and complex for MS than it is for NMR spectroscopy. Serious problems due to matrix effects are much less common in NMR spectroscopy than in MS where they may lead to considerably attenuated signals. Metabolite quantitation can be achieved with either method. However, multiple standard compounds are needed for MS due to variations in matrix effects and ionization efficiencies between metabolites. By contrast, only one standard per sample is needed for an NMR spectroscopic analysis because under appropriate measuring conditions, the latter method is intrinsically quantitative thanks to the strictly linear NMR response by the observed nuclei. A major drawback of NMR is its relatively low sensitivity. MS, in particular LC-MS, is more sensitive than NMR by several orders of magnitude; for this reason, MS is to be preferred over NMR for the analysis of compounds occurring at very low concentrations. On the other hand, the nondestructive nature of the NMR experiment is a clear advantage over MS; in this way, NMR can be performed repeatedly on the same sample, e.g., for different NMR-active nuclei such as 1H, phosphorus-31 (31P), carbon-13 (13C), fluorine-19 (19F) etc., as no material is consumed by NMR as opposed to MS measurements.
Both NMR and MS can be employed in different modes, each one being optimal for the detection of compounds with particular chemical characteristics. For instance, 31P NMR is often better suited than 1H NMR for the analysis of moderately concentrated phosphorylated compounds, although almost all phosphorylated metabolites also contain protons. However, their 1H NMR signals may be obscured by 1H NMR signals from other, non-phosphorylated compounds, while the latter obviously do not cause background signals in 31P NMR spectra. In an analog situation, 19F NMR analysis is to be preferred for fluorinated compounds, e.g., fluorinated drugs (no background signals from endogenous metabolites), while the special case of 13C NMR is of interest almost exclusively if the fate of 13C-labeled exogenous metabolic precursors needs to be followed, due to the extremely low natural abundance of the 13C isotope (ca. 1%). Many mass spectrometers work in either negative ion mode or positive ion mode. Therefore, it is important to know ahead of the analysis whether the ions to be observed are negatively or positively charged. We focus here on a protocol for the analysis of the brain tissue metabolome by 1H and 31P NMR spectroscopy because this method yields a large number of important metabolite concentrations at low cost in terms of (i) time needed for sample preparation and (ii) effort required for metabolite quantitation. All experiments can be performed using the equipment of a standard wet-chemistry laboratory and a high-resolution NMR spectroscopy facility. Further requirements are described in the Protocol section below.