生物检材中苯丙胺类兴奋剂和氯胺酮的LC-MS/MS分析

目的建立生物检材中苯丙胺类兴奋剂和氯胺酮的液相色谱-串联质谱(LC-MS/MS)分析方法。方法生物检材包括血液、尿液和毛发,采用稀释法和液液提取的前处理方法,应用两个不同的液相柱,优化LC-MS/MS分析方法,并考察了血液和尿液基质的离子抑制作用。结果同时分析苯丙胺和MDA,液相1在3m in内完成,液相2可用于确认分析或复杂基质分离。尿液稀释法检材用量少,前处理简便快速。毛发中苯丙胺类兴奋剂和氯胺酮的最低检测限(LOD)为0.005~0.05ng/mg。对送检案例检材产妇头发和胎毛进行苯丙胺类兴奋剂和氯胺酮的分析。结论本方法可用于生物检材中苯丙胺类兴奋剂和氯胺酮的同时分析,血、尿等生物检材的离子抑制作用是影响本方法灵敏度的主要原因。     

毛发中甲基苯丙胺含量的测量不确定度评定

对涉嫌吸毒人员毛发样本中的甲基苯丙胺含量进行测量不确定度评定。将毛发样本清洗、定量称取、研磨提取后，采用液相色谱-串联质谱仪（LC-MS/MS）分析甲基苯丙胺含量。基于样本处理程序及外标单点定量法数学模型，分析毛发中甲基苯丙胺含量的不确定度来源，并进行分量评定及合成不确定度计算。本方法检测毛发中甲基苯丙胺含量为0.264 ng/mg，结果的合成相对不确定度为4.0%，引入各项不确定度分量的因素贡献大小顺序为：甲基苯丙胺标准工作溶液浓度>检测重复性>标准工作溶液移取体积>提取溶剂移取体积>检材称取质量。本研究从人员操作、仪器设备和实验环境等方面评定了毛发中甲基苯丙胺含量的不确定度，提高了检验结果科学性和表述严谨性，有利于为涉毒案件的执法和审判提供坚实科学证据。     

几种灵长类毛发角蛋白组分的分析研究

迄今为止,对人和各种动物毛发的研究报道已有不少,诸如:光学显微镜观察毛发的形态结构,毛发微量元素的分析,扫描电镜对毛发进行种属鉴别,以及用 SDS—PAGE 分析毛发角旦白组分的研究,但是,对于灵长类毛发的比较研究则很少见,曹汉民等利用扫描和透射电镜对灵长类毛发的亚显微给构进行比较研究,     

毛发中毒品分析

毛发分析在法庭毒品分析领域有其独特的优势,很多国家的法化学实验室,毛发分析已成为毒品检测的常规操作,并已得到了法庭的承认、采纳。本文对毒品进入毛发的机制、毛发的现场勘查、毛发中毒品分析程序、毛发中毒品分析结果的评判进行了综述。简单地介绍了毛发在现场勘查中采取、包装、送检的基本方法和技术人员在操作过程中的注意事项,以及针对毛发检验中的特殊技术处理;另外,介绍了毛发中毒品分析的特点,通过分析毛发毒品的药理机制,总结出了一些高效、便利、快速的毒品分析方法,并对各种方法进行了介绍,得出了毛发中毒品分析结果的一些特点。     

兴奋剂使用行为的性质及其规治研究

竞技体育一直受到兴奋剂问题困扰,该问题更有向学校体育甚至社会体育蔓延的趋势。在分析兴奋剂的概念、功能、类型、本质等基础上,对兴奋剂使用行为进行了类型化分析及其法理诠释,揭示了兴奋剂使用行为的社会危害性并对其违法性进行了系统分析。当前我国对兴奋剂的控制已经形成了全面的治理体系,依据治理主体、治理客体及客观方面的不同,治理兴奋剂使用行为存在技术措施、纪律措施及法律措施等适用差异,需要进一步完善。     

药物滥用者毛发药物分析研究进展

对药物滥用者的检测，7O年代前一般采用血液及尿液分析。1978年，Baumgartner等有次采用RIA技术，成功地对人体毛发检材中海洛因／吗啡进行了检测．获得满意的结果。自此用于生物体液分析的各种免疫学，物理化学技术包括RIA、GC／MS．MS／ms和HPLC逐渐移用于毛发中药物分析。近年来，毛发药物分析成了法科学和临床分析毒物学研究的热点。众多的研究表明，毛发分析和尿液分析两者具有互补的优点。尿液分析能提供个体短期使用药物的信息，而长期使用药物，从数月到数年，通过毛发分析较易得到证实。毛发分析不仅提供个体使用药物种类…     

单根毛发角蛋白的分离与分析

本文用单根毛发(1～5cm)进行微量化角蛋白 SDS-梯度聚丙烯酰胺凝胶电泳分析,并对人与5种不同种属的动物毛发角蛋白进行了比较研究。结果表明,人与动物毛发角蛋白组分有明显差异,主要区别在于低分子量区域;用 N-(3-芘)马来酰胺标记毛发角蛋白巯基,进一步确定了毛发角蛋白中低硫蛋白位于45,000～52,000分子量范围,高硫蛋白位于<18,500分子量范围。人与动物毛发角蛋白的主要差异是高硫蛋白。作者认为,本实验方法对法医学毛发鉴别有一定的实用意义。     

毒品与毛发的结合及其影响因素

毛发毒品的分析在毒品检验中具有独特优势,而毛发与毒品的结合状况及毒品聚集于毛发的机制影响其检测的准确性和灵敏性。对毒品与毛发的结合位点、毒品与毛发结合的差异性因素以及外界因素对毒品与毛发结合的影响进行了综述。     

脱落毛发线粒体DNA HV1区序列测定的研究

目的 对脱落毛发线粒体ＤＮＡ ＨＶ１区序列测定方法进行研究。方法 嵌合扩增结合末端荧光标记ＤＮＡ测序。结果 对２０例脱落毛发进行分析获得了明确的测序结果,与来自同一个体的血液所测得的ＤＮＡ序列进行比较,完全相同。结论 嵌合扩增在对脱落毛发进行线粒体ＤＮＡ多变区序列分析中是一种有效的方法,在法医ＤＮＡ检验中具有实用价值。     

脱落毛发线粒体DNA HV1区序列测定的研究

目的　对脱落毛发线粒体DNAHV1区序列测定方法进行研究。方法　嵌合扩增结合末端荧光标记DNA测序。结果　对 2 0例脱落毛发进行分析获得了明确的测序结果 ,与来自同一个体的血液所测得的DNA序列进行比较 ,完全相同。结论　嵌合扩增在对脱落毛发进行线粒体DNA多变区序列分析中是一种有效的方法 ,在法医DNA检验中具有实用价值。     

Pharmacological criteria that can affect the detection of doping agents in hair

When positive drug results are reported, a common interpretive question posed is whether or not it is possible to put a quantitative finding into context. A standard answer to this inquiry is that a positive hair testing result can be interpreted as meaning that the donor has chronically or repetitively used the drug identified in the hair, but that chronic or repetitive are not defined in the same way for all individuals. The Society of Hair Testing published on June 16, 1999, a consensus opinion on the use of hair in doping situations. However, although accepted in most courts of justice, hair analysis is not yet recognised by the International Olympic Committee. To be considered as a valid specimen for doping control, some issues still need to be addressed. The scientific community has demonstrated significant concern over the proper role that hair drug testing should serve in toxicological applications. Among the unanswered questions, five are of critical importance: (1) What is the minimal amount of drug detectable in hair after administration? (2) What is the relationship between the amount of the drug used and the concentration of the drug or its metabolites in hair? (3) What is the influence of hair color? (4) Is there any racial bias in hair testing? (5) What is the influence of cosmetic treatments? The present report documents scientific findings on these questions, with particular attention to the applications of hair in doping control.     

Analytical strategy for detecting doping agents in hair

Lists of banned classes of doping agents are released by the International Olympic Committee, adopted by other sports authorities and updated regularly, including the substance classes stimulants, narcotics, diuretics, anabolic agents, peptide hormones, beta-blockers etc. There are different classes of restriction: anabolic and masking agents (anabolic steroids, diuretics etc.) are always banned for athletes regardless of their topical activity (training or competition) several substances are permitted with certain restrictions (caffeine below a cut-off value, or inhalation of some beta 2 agonists) beta-blockers are prohibited in competitions of certain sports disciplines the majority of the substances (stimulants, narcotics etc.) is prohibited during competitions, so that they do not have to be analysed in out-of-competition samples. A differentiation between training and competition period is impossible by means of hair analysis due to the uncertainty of (especially short-term) kinetic considerations related to hair growth. Therefore, the analytical identification of doping relevant substances in hair is not always a sufficient criterion for a doping offence and the identification of stimulants, beta-blockers etc. in hair would be entirely irrelevant. The most interesting target substances are certainly the anabolic agents, because their desired action (enhanced muscle strength) lasts longer than the excretion, leading to sophisticated procedures to circumvent positive analytical results in competition control. Besides the analysis of out-of-competition control samples, the long term detection of steroids in hair could provide complementary information. An analytical approach to the identification of exogenous steroids in hair requires consideration of the presence of many other steroids in the hair matrix interfering the analysis at trace levels, and of a limited chemical stability. The analysis of endogenous steroids in hair appears to be even more complicated, because the possibility of many biotransformation reactions from (into) other precursors (metabolites) has to be taken into account. Precursor substances of anabolic steroids (especially esters as application forms) are very promising analytical targets of hair analysis, because they can only be detected after an exogenous intake. The quantitative evaluation of active parent compounds like testosterone (which is actively involved in physiological processes of hair growth) in hair is still controversial. Clinical applications under reproducible conditions can be useful, but the biovariability of these parameters will probably prevent the definition of acceptable cut-off levels as a criterion of abuse.     

Hair analysis of seven bodybuilders for anabolic steroids,ephedrine, and clenbuterol

Several bodybuilders, all winners of international competitions, were arrested for trafficking of a number of doping agents including anabolic steroids, ephedrine, beta-adrenergics, human chorionic gonadotropin, antidepressants, and diuretics. In accordance with the recent French law against doping, the judge asked to test seven bodybuilders to identify doping practices. Hair and urine specimens were collected for analysis. After decontamination, a 100 mg hair strand was pulverized in a ball mill, hydrolyzed, extracted, and derivatized to be tested by GC/MS for anabolic steroids, beta-adrenergic compounds, ephedrine, and other doping agents. Urine was analyzed for anabolic steroids and metabolites, beta-adrenergic compounds, ephedrine, and human chorionic gonadotropin, in addition to a broad spectrum screening with GC/MS. The following compounds were detected in urine: ephedrine (29 and 36 ng/mL, n = 2), clenbuterol (0.2 to 0.3 ng/mL, n = 3), norandrosterone (4.7 to 100.7 ng/mL, n = 7), norethiocholanolone (0.9 to 161.8 ng/mL, n = 6), stanozolol (1 to 25.8 ng/mL, n = 4), methenolone (2.5 to 29.7 ng/mL, n = 4), testosterone (3 to 59.6 ng/mL, n = 7), epitestosterone (1 to 20.4 ng/mL, n = 7) and ratio testosterone/epitestosterone >6 for four subjects (18.5 to 59.6). The following drugs were detected in hair: ephedrine (0.67 and 10.70 ng/mg, n = 2), salbutamol (15 to 31 pg/mg, n = 3), clenbuterol (15 to 122 pg/mg, n = 6), nandrolone (1 to 7.5 pg/mg, n = 3), stanozolol (2 to 84 pg/mg, n = 4), methenolone (17 and 34 ng/ml, n = 2), testosterone enanthate (0.6 to 18.8 ng/mg, n = 5), and testosterone cypionate (3.3 to 4.8 ng/mg, n = 2). These results document the doping practice and demonstrate repetitive exposure to anabolic compounds and confirm the value of hair analysis as a complement to urinalysis in the control of doping practice.     

Value of the concept of minimal detectable dosage in human hair

The influence on drug incorporation of melanin affinity, lipophilicity, and membrane permeability is of paramount importance. Despite their high lipophilicity, some drugs have quite low incorporation rate into hair, suggesting that the higher incorporation rates of basic drugs (cocaine, amphetamines.) than neutral (steroids, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids…) or acidic ones are strongly related to the penetrating ability of the drug to break through the membrane based on the pH gradient between blood and the acidic hair matrix. When using hair analysis as a matrix during investigative analysis, e.g. workplace drug testing, doping, driving under the influence, drug-facilitated crime, the question of importance is to know whether the analytical procedure was sensitive enough to identify traces of drugs; this is particularly important when the urine sample(s) of the subject was positive and the hair sample(s) was negative. It has been accepted in the forensic community that a negative hair result cannot exclude the administration of a particular drug, or one of its precursors and the negative findings should not overrule a positive urine result. Nevertheless, the negative hair findings can, on occasion, cast doubt on the positive urine analysis, resulting in substantial legal debate and various consequences for the subject. The concept of minimal detectable dosage in hair is of interest to document the negative findings, but limited data is currently available in the scientific literature. Such data includes cocaine, codeine, ketamine, some benzodiazepines and some unusual compounds. Until laboratories will have sensitive enough methodologies to detect a single use of drug, care should be taken to compare urine and hair findings.     

Is there a place for hair analysis in doping controls?

The actual antidoping control rules applied in sports (as established by the International Olympic Committee and the International Sport Federations) state that a positive case is chemically established by the unequivocal detection of a forbidden parent molecule and/or any of its metabolite(s) in urine, no matter the amounts which were administered and when the drug was taken. Screening is accomplished most of the time by using GC-MS procedures. These have been optimized to detect most if not all of the forbidden compounds which are put on a list. Recently, attempts have been made on scalp hair to demonstrate the value of this matrix as a possible means for differentiating between therapeutic use and doping abuse. In particular, GC-mass selective detector and GC-high resolution MS were successfully applied to treated animals and body-builders for anabolic agents (steroids and beta-2-agonists) at high sensitivity detection (low ng/g level). Naturally occurring molecules, like testosterone and its metabolites, could also be differentiated from their synthetic counterparts. Positive cases are more often challenged in courts and retrospectivity in time of the drug(s) intake is becoming an important issue for evaluating the responsibility of the person. This is can be based on hair analyses if the drugs have been taken at regular intervals. Stimulants and narcotics are often used in sports like drug of abuse in the ordinary social contexts. On the other hand, anabolic agents, when taken to improve the physical performances, follow complex regimens with the mixing of various formulas and dosages. Scalp hair references ranges for these as well as for endogenous substances still wait to be established statistically for competing, well-trained athletes. The incorporation rate into blond or gray hair is poorer than that of dark colored hair raising the question of individuals equality against the controls, a very important matter of concern for the sport's governing bodies. The frequency of hair cutting and short hair cuts necessary to gain speed in specific sports like swimming are other critical factors. On the other hands, irregular hair growth, associated with the washout effect through multiple washing and staining processes over expanded time intervals can cause concentrating or diluting effects. So far, a minority of prohibited substances could be detected in scalp hair with the sensitivity and specificity required in the context of the sport's activities. From the above, clear limitations of the usefulness of hair analysis in doping control analysis are obvious until a lot more data relevant to this particular field have been collected.     

Substitution of human for horse urine disproves an accusation of doping*

In order to detect switching and/or manipulation of samples, the owner of a stallion asked our lab to perform a DNA test on a positive doping urine sample. The objective was to compare the urine DNA profile versus blood and hair DNA profiles from the same stallion. At first, 10 microsatellite markers were investigated to determine the horse identity. No results were obtained when horse specific markers were typed in the urine sample. In order to confirm the species origin of this sample we analyzed the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene. This analysis from blood and hair samples produced reproducible and clear PCR-RFLP patterns and DNA sequence match with those expected for horse, while the urine sample results were coincident with human. These results allowed us to exclude the urine sample from the questioned stallion and determine its human species origin, confirming the manipulation of urine sample.     

Compared interest between hair analysis and urinalysis in doping controls. Results for amphetamines, corticosteroids and anabolic steroids in racing cyclists

In France during a famous bicycle race, the newspapers documented the degree in which doping seemed to be supervised in some teams by managers and doctors. Use of anabolic steroids and other substances was officially banned in the mid-seventies by sports authorities. This policy has been enforced through urine testing before competition. It is well known, however, that a latency period is all that is necessary to defeat these tests. Nevertheless, hair analysis could be a promising tool when testing for periods that are not accessible to urinalysis any more. We have developed different sensitive methods for testing hair for amphetamines, anabolic steroids and their esters and corticosteroids. For amphetamines, 50 mg of hair were digested with 1 M NaOH, extracted with ethyl acetate, derivatized with TFA and analyzed by gas chromatography positive chemical-ionization mass spectrometry. For corticosteroids, 50 mg of powdered hair were treated with methanol in an ultrasonic bath and subsequently purified using a C18 solid phase extraction column. Analysis was realized by high performance liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray-ionization tandem mass spectrometry. For anabolic steroids and their esters, 100 mg of powdered hair were treated with methanol in an ultrasonic bath for extraction of esters, then alkaline digested with 1 M NaOH for an optimum recovery of other drugs. The two liquid preparations were subsequently extracted with ethyl acetate, pooled, then finally highly purified using a twin solid phase extraction on aminopropyl and silica cartridges. Residue was derivatized with MSTFA prior to injection. Analysis was conducted by gas chromatography coupled to a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. Thirty cyclists were sampled and tested both in hair and in urine. Amphetamine was detected 10 times in hair (out of 19 analyses) compared to 6 times in urine (out of 30 analyses). Corticosteroids were detected 5 times in hair (methylprednisolone 1 case, triamcinolone acetonide 3 cases and hydrocortisone acetate 1 case) in hair (out of 12 analyses) compared to 12 times (triamcinolone acetonide 10 cases and betamethasone 2 cases) in urine (out of 30 analyses). Anabolic steroids were detected twice (nandrolone 1 case, and testosterone undecanoate 1 case) in hair (out of 25 analyses) compared to none in urine (out of 30 analyses).     

Correlation of the incidence of cocaine and cocaethylene in hair and postmortem biologic samples

Hair samples are useful as a matrix for drug testing because drugs can be detected in hair for longer periods than in blood or urine. The authors report a prospective comparison of the detection of cocaine and cocaethylene in routine postmortem biologic specimens to the detection of cocaine and cocaethylene in hair. The authors collected hair samples from various areas of the head in 53 autopsy cases, prepared them, and analyzed them by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) for cocaine and cocaethylene. The authors compared the results of hair analysis with the results of toxicologic analysis performed on routine postmortem samples by enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique and GC/MS. Cocaine was found in either biologic fluids or in hair in 16 of 53 samples tested. Nine samples were positive for cocaine in both biologic fluids and hair. Five samples contained cocaine only in biologic fluids, and two contained cocaine only in hair. Cocaethylene was present in two cases. Drug screening of hair provides additional information in some autopsy cases, but the authors have not made hair analysis a routine practice. It may prove useful to save hair samples in all cases for later analysis if warranted by additional history or autopsy findings.     

New trends in hair analysis and scientific demands on validation and technical notes

This review focuses on basic aspects of method development and validation of hair testing procedures. Quality assurance is a major issue in drug testing in hair resulting in new recommendations, validation procedures and inter-laboratory comparisons. Furthermore recent trends in research concerning hair analysis are discussed, namely mechanisms of drug incorporation and retention, novel analytical procedures (especially ones using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and alternative sample preparation techniques like solid-phase microextraction (SPME)), the determination of THC-COOH in hair samples, hair testing in drug-facilitated crimes, enantioselective hair testing procedures and the importance of hair analysis in clinical trials. Hair testing in analytical toxicology is still an area in need of further research.