Skip to main content
. 2012 May 17;8:17. doi: 10.1186/1746-4811-8-17

Table 3.

Method validation

CKs
Recovery (%)a
Determined spiked CK content (pmol)b
Method precision (% RSD)b
Method accuracy (% bias)b
  1 mg FW 2 mg FW 5 mg FW      
tZ
80 ± 10
63 ± 8
21 ± 4
0.99 ± 0.17
17.2
0.1
tZR
72 ± 12
46 ± 7
8 ± 1
0.84 ± 0.09
10.4
16.1
tZ7G
88 ± 6
57 ± 4
6 ± 1
0.91 ± 0.13
14.6
8.6
tZ9G
59 ± 7
31 ± 3
8 ± 1
0.97 ± 0.09
9.6
2.5
tZOG
85 ± 5
68 ± 6
11 ± 2
1.07 ± 0.19
18.1
−7.1
tZROG
55 ± 4
30 ± 3
4 ± 1
0.82 ± 0.09
11.1
17.6
tZMP
35 ± 6
11 ± 1
5 ± 1
0.85 ± 0.11
13.3
14.7
cZ
75 ± 9
65 ± 5
24 ± 4
0.83 ± 0.02
2.5
17.0
cZR
81 ± 13
44 ± 9
8 ± 1
0.96 ± 0.12
12.8
4.1
cZ9G
74 ± 12
37 ± 5
5 ± 1
1.18 ± 0.13
11.3
−17.6
cZOG
89 ± 6
66 ± 7
9 ± 2
1.09 ± 0.14
13.2
−9.1
cZROG
52 ± 6
24 ± 2
3 ± 1
0.89 ± 0.11
12.9
11.2
cZMP
32 ± 3
17 ± 1
2 ± 1
0.86 ± 0.15
17.9
13.9
DHZ
77 ± 13
61 ± 7
20 ± 3
0.90 ± 0.10
10.8
9.7
DHZR
88 ± 13
48 ± 8
12 ± 1
1.03 ± 0.06
5.6
−2.9
DHZ7G
89 ± 3
65 ± 3
8 ± 2
1.18 ± 0.05
4.3
−18.2
DHZ9G
78 ± 10
35 ± 6
6 ± 1
0.96 ± 0.07
7.2
3.7
DHZOG
77 ± 5
50 ± 7
9 ± 3
1.16 ± 0.06
4.9
−15.8
DHZROG
87 ± 8
42 ± 5
5 ± 1
0.90 ± 0.12
13.3
9.8
DHZMP
37 ± 1
12 ± 1
3 ± 1
0.96 ± 0.15
15.8
3.6
iP
76 ± 9
68 ± 3
26 ± 5
0.97 ± 0.06
5.9
3.3
iPR
84 ± 8
53 ± 4
17 ± 1
1.13 ± 0.06
5.6
−12.8
iP7G
83 ± 10
60 ± 5
7 ± 1
0.91 ± 0.15
16.5
9.4
iP9G
74 ± 8
49 ± 8
8 ± 2
0.97 ± 0.08
8.0
3.1
iPMP 78 ± 9 39 ± 9 9 ± 2 0.92 ± 0.16 17.0 8.4

a Values are means ± SD (n = 4); b Values are means ± SD (n = 12).

Recovery (%) is shown for different amounts of plant matrix together with determinations of the analytical precision and accuracy of whole procedure. Plant tissues (1–5 mg FW ofA. thalianaseedlings spiked with 1 pmol of authentic CK standards) were extracted in Bieleski buffer, purified by multi-StageTip microcolumn chromatography and directly analyzed by UHPLC-ESI(+)-MS/MS.