Skip to main content
Molecules logoLink to Molecules
. 2018 May 31;23(6):1324. doi: 10.3390/molecules23061324

Sphingolipidomic Profiling of Rat Serum by UPLC-Q-TOF-MS: Application to Rheumatoid Arthritis Study

Fanghui Qu 1, Hongyang Zhang 1,2,*, Min Zhang 2, Ping Hu 1,*
PMCID: PMC6099492  PMID: 29857511

Abstract

Sphingolipids (SPLs) are biologically important molecules, but the structural diversity and complexity of SPLs brings significant analytical challenges for their study. In this paper, we have developed an UPLC-Q-TOF-MS-based sphingolipidomic approach for the comprehensive identification and quantification of SPLs in rat serum. A total of 120 SPLs covering seven subcategories were identified for the first time. Method validations including linearity, sensitivity, reproducibility, and recovery were also evaluated. This method was exemplarily applied to characterize the SPL alterations in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) rats and the intervention effects of indomethacin (IDM). Partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) showed that the model group was well separated from the control group, whereas the IDM-treated group exhibited a trend to recover the controls. Twenty-six significantly changed SPL markers were explored, and the levels of ceramides (Cers) and their metabolites were found to be reversed by IDM treatment. These results indicate that IDM exerts anti-arthritic effects through the suppression of Cer-mediated COX-2 activation and resulting PEG2 liberation. The present study demonstrates a promising potential of this method for the understanding of RA and the anti-arthritic mechanisms of relevant drugs.

Keywords: sphingolipidomic, UPLC-Q-TOF-MS, rat serum, rheumatoid arthritis, indomethacin intervention

1. Introduction

Sphingolipids (SPLs) represent the largest class of bioactive lipids involved in many aspects of cell structure, metabolism, and regulation [1]. Dysregulation of SPL homeostasis has been implicated in various diseases, including inflammation, cancer, obesity, and neurodegenerative disorders [2,3,4,5]. All SPLs share the common backbones of sphingoid bases, a set of aliphatic amino alcohols that contains sphingosine (So) and sphinganine (Sa) (Figure 1). As the simplest type, sphingoid bases can be amide-linked with a fatty acid to convert into ceramide (Cer). These basic SPLs can be further derivatized to: (i) phosphates, e.g., sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) and ceramide-1-phosphate (C1P); (ii) phosphosphingolipids, e.g., sphingomyelin (SM); and (iii) glycosphingolipids, e.g., glucosylceramide (GlcCer) and lactosylceramide (LacCer). The structural diversity and complexity of SPLs, due to the numerous variations in sphingoid backbones, fatty acid chains, and head groups, brings significant analytical challenges for their study. Therefore, the introduction of “sphingolipidomics” aims for comprehensive analysis of all SPLs present in a biological system, and is urgently required to understand the roles of SPLs in biology and disease [1].

Figure 1.

Figure 1

General structures, nomenclatures, and abbreviations for SPLs. m, carbon number of the sphingoid base backbone; n, carbon number of the fatty acid chain.

Nowadays, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) has become the most powerful technique for sphingolipidomic analysis owing to its high sensitivity, specificity, and throughput capabilities [6]. Nevertheless, because of the extreme complexity of SPLs, there are still several difficulties in current LC-MS methods using triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry (QQQ-MS) in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode [6,7]. A key limitation is that the existing methods for SPL profiling often suffer from isomeric, isobaric, or isotopic interferences, leading to a failure in detection of the low-abundance but biologically important SPLs. To solve this problem, the latest methodology developed by our group is mainly based on ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-Q-TOF-MS) [8]. UPLC provides sufficient separation of the interfering species. High resolution Q-TOF-MS offers accurate mass measurements at both MS and MS/MS level, permitting a reliable identification for subsequent quantification. This strategy appears promising for sphingolipidomic studies, including the discovery of disease biomarkers, as well as the evaluation of therapeutic effects of drug [8,9].

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, destructive, and autoimmune disease characterized by inflammation in movable joints [10]. Growing evidence shows the significant role of SPLs in the pathogenesis of RA, and also demonstrates their potential as therapeutic targets for RA treatment [10,11]. However, until now, there has been no sphingolipidomic study focusing on this area. Herein, we firstly report an UPLC-Q-TOF-MS-based sphingolipidomic approach for the comprehensive identification and quantification of SPLs in rat serum. The developed method was fully validated and applied to RA study. Serum samples collected from rats in control, model, and indomethacin (IDM)-treated groups were comparatively analyzed. Partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was further employed to identify the arthritis-related lipid alterations and explore the anti-arthritic mechanism of IDM.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Comprehensive Identification of SPLs in Rat Serum

UPLC-Q-TOF-MS is a useful analytical tool to separate and identify SPLs in complex matrices. The targeted-MS/MS analysis offered by Q-TOF-MS provides the accurate mass of both molecular and fragment ions, which are informative for SPL identification. Taking m/z 300.2897 (So), 596.5967 (Cer), 862.6245 (LacCer), and 799.6679 (SM) as examples, the fragmentation patterns of each species were summarized, as shown in Figure 2. The neutral loss of H2O and/or HCHO observed from MS/MS spectra corresponds to the hydroxyl group in sphingoid backbone. The characteristic ions specific to sphingoid backbone are decisive for the structural elucidation of SPLs, e.g., m/z 266.2834, 264.2679, and 262.2526 ions for the assignment of d18:0, d18:1, and d18:2 backbones, respectively [6,8]. Additionally, the abundant phosphocholine ion at m/z 184.0726 is regarded as the diagnostic fragment for the confirmation of SMs [6]. For complex glycosphingolipids, the neutral loss of sugar units reflects their sugar residue compositions, e.g., two 162 u gaps from the ions of m/z 862.6245 to 538.5173 suggesting the sequential loss of two glucosyl groups. Based on these fragmentation rules mentioned above, a total of 120 SPLs were identified in rat serum samples, covering seven subcategories (i.e., So and Sa, S1P, Cer, C1P, hexosylceramide (HexCer), LacCer, and SM) with various sphingoid and fatty acid chain compositions (Table 1 and Figure S1). It is worth mentioning that HexCer includes GlcCer and galactosylceramide (GalCer), which cannot be distinguished by this method.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Characteristic MS/MS spectra of (a) So (d18:1); (b) Cer (d18:0/20:0); (c) LacCer (d18:1/16:0); and (d) SM (d18:2/23:0) by Q-TOF-MS analysis. So, sphingosine; Cer, ceramide; LacCer, lactosylceramide; SM, sphingomyelin.

Table 1.

Identification of SPLs in rat serum by using UPLC-Q-TOF-MS.

Class 1 No. Name 2 Formula RT (min) [M + H]+ m/z Score MS/MS Fragments (m/z)
So&Sa 1 Sa (d14:0) C14H31NO2 2.26 246.2422 99.89 228.2315, 210.2193, 198.2673
2 So (d14:1) C14H29NO2 2.60 244.2271 99.86 226.2156,208.1987, 196.2034
3 So (t14:2) C14H27NO3 4.45 258.2064 82.76 240.1939, 222.1958
4 So (d15:1) C15H31NO2 4.74 258.2428 99.74 240.2315, 222.2216, 210.2192
5 Sa (d16:0) C16H35NO2 5.08 274.2739 99.91 256.2627, 238.2575
6 So (d16:1) C16H33NO2 4.92 272.2584 86.47 254.2476, 236.2378
7 Sa (t16:0) C16H35NO3 5.12 290.2677 99.91 272.2571, 254.2487, 242.2472
8 Sa (d18:0) C18H39NO2 6.15 302.3053 98.75 284.2943, 266.2811
9 So (d18:1) C18H37NO2 9.85 300.2897 99.56 282.2796, 264.2728, 252.2642
10 So (d18:2) C18H35NO2 9.40 298.2745 85.01 280.2625, 262.2540
11 Sa (d19:0) C19H41NO2 11.91 316.3209 99.22 298.3109
12 So (d19:1) C19H39NO2 10.91 314.3041 99.31 296.2927
13 Sa (d20:0) C20H43NO2 13.84 330.3363 90.41 312.3268, 294.3189
14 Sa (d24:0) C24H51NO2 9.73 386.3950 99.34 368.3831, 350.3687
[IS-1] Sa (d17:0) C17H37NO2 5.62 288.2872 - 270.2790, 252.2685, 240.2682
[IS-2] So (d17:1) C17H35NO2 7.41 286.2749 - 268.2631, 250.2519, 238.2529
S1P 15 S1P (d18:1) C18H38NO5P 6.93 380.2561 99.89 282.2864, 264.2709
[IS-3] S1P (d17:1) C11H36NO5P 7.89 366.2399 - 348.2312, 268.2618, 250.2532
Cer 16 Cer (d16:1/23:0) C39H77NO3 17.11 608.5976 92.16 590.5851, 572.5759, 254.2505, 236.2367
17 Cer (d17:1/24:1) C41H79NO3 16.89 634.6133 85.39 616.6008, 598.5886, 268.2633, 250.2521
18 Cer (d18:0/16:0) C34H69NO3 14.03 540.5344 90.32 522.5218, 504.5128, 302.3115, 284.2943, 266.2829
19 Cer (d18:0/20:0) C38H77NO3 16.88 596.5967 94.77 578.5896, 560.5793, 284.2940, 266.2834
20 Cer (d18:0/21:0) C39H79NO3 17.70 610.6133 94.78 592.6011, 266.2884
21 Cer (d18:0/22:0) C40H81NO3 18.41 624.6289 99.59 606.6167, 588.6131, 302.3045, 284.2946, 266.2837
22 Cer (d18:0/23:0) C41H83NO3 19.36 638.6448 97.15 620.6309, 602.6203, 302.3067, 284.2946, 266.2843, 254.2850
23 Cer (d18:0/24:0) C42H85NO3 20.30 652.6596 98.57 634.6530, 616.6360, 302.3034, 284.2964, 266.2846, 254.2844
24 Cer (d18:0/24:1) C42H83NO3 18.61 650.6441 98.55 632.6337, 614.6224, 302.3030, 284.2950, 266.2840, 254.2840
25 Cer (d18:0/26:1) C44H87NO3 20.53 678.6751 84.92 660.6634, 284.2932, 266.2848
26 Cer (d18:1/14:0) C32H63NO3 12.00 510.4881 78.69 492.4790, 474.4692, 282.2814, 264.2651
27 Cer (d18:1/16:0) C34H67NO3 13.61 538.5191 99.81 520.5074, 502.4899, 282.2789, 264.2684, 252.2676
28 Cer (d18:1/17:2) C35H65NO3 16.61 548.5037 98.94 264.2651
29 Cer (d18:1/17:3) C35H63NO3 12.96 546.4881 96.54 282.2838, 264.2675
30 Cer (d18:1/18:0) C36H71NO3 14.96 566.5507 97.65 548.5396, 282.2766, 264.2681, 252.2659
31 Cer (d18:1/20:0) C38H75NO3 16.38 594.5820 89.81 576.5703, 558.5569, 546.5640, 282.2792, 264.2676, 252.2668
32 Cer (d18:1/20:4) C38H67NO3 13.98 586.5167 67.08 300.2854, 282.2756, 264.2686
33 Cer (d18:1/21:0) C39H77NO3 17.01 608.5976 95.73 282.2768, 264.2670, 252.2686
34 Cer (d18:1/22:0) C40H79NO3 17.81 622.6133 99.51 604.6030, 586.5865, 300.2959, 282.2779, 264.2684, 252.2680
35 Cer (d18:1/23:0) C41H81NO3 18.66 636.6285 99.56 618.6171, 600.6080, 282.2790, 264.2683, 252.2682
36 Cer (d18:1/23:1) C41H79NO3 17.11 634.6133 84.89 616.6008, 598.5886, 282.2802, 264.2681, 252.2660
37 Cer (d18:1/24:0) C42H83NO3 19.59 650.6441 99.24 632.6343, 614.6247, 602.6231, 282.2789, 264.2678, 252.2682
38 Cer (d18:1/24:1) C42H81NO3 18.31 648.6299 91.22 630.6188, 612.6087, 282.2789, 264.2682, 252.2684
39 Cer (d18:1/25:0) C43H85NO3 20.07 664.6588 92.95 646.6410, 628.6374, 300.2882, 282.2786, 264.2682, 252.2680
40 Cer (d18:1/26:3) C42H77NO3 17.81 644.5934 90.90 282.2805, 264.2683
41 Cer (d18:2/16:0) C34H65NO3 12.71 536.5037 70.02 518.4939, 500.4770, 280.2648, 262.2522, 250.2529
42 Cer (d18:2/18:2) C36H65NO3 13.63 560.4967 90.73 542.4881, 280.2661, 262.2545
43 Cer (d18:2/22:0) C40H77NO3 16.79 620.5976 98.38 602.5861, 584.5741, 298.2758, 280.2635, 262.2526, 250.2515
44 Cer (d20:0/16:0) C36H73NO3 12.67 568.5663 97.20 312.3264, 294.3158
45 Cer (d20:0/22:0) C42H85NO3 20.91 652.6602 99.80 634.6507, 616.6358, 312.3241, 294.3116
46 Cer (t18:0/16:0) C34H69NO4 12.91 556.5299 81.00 502.4892, 300.2886, 282.2773, 264.2704
47 Cer (t18:0/19:2) C37H71NO5 15.96 610.5405 99.43 282.2797, 264.2680
[IS-4] Cer (d18:1/12:0) C30H59NO3 10.38 482.4564 - 464.4507, 282.2779, 264.2682, 252.2670
C1P 48 C1P (d18:0/16:0) C34H70NO6P 12.21 620.5014 97.60 266.2896
49 C1P (d18:1/12:3) C30H54NO6P 9.17 556.3733 90.34 264.2703
50 C1P (d18:1/16:0) C34H68NO6P 11.41 618.4866 97.06 264.2682
51 C1P (d18:1/16:2) C34H64NO6P 11.09 614.4544 91.65 264.2693
52 C1P (d18:1/18:0) C36H72NO6P 14.84 646.5187 76.43 282.2779, 264.2691
53 C1P (d18:1/26:0) C44H88NO6P 25.49 758.6422 86.48 264.2698
54 C1P (d18:2/14:1) C32H60NO6P 9.67 586.4231 96.64 262.2576
[IS-5] C1P (d18:1/12:0) C30H60NO6P 9.61 562.4226 - 544.4109, 464.4442, 446.4342, 282.2719, 264.2677
HexCer 3 55 HexCer (d18:0/20:0) C44H87NO8 13.19 758.6504 99.76 596.5976, 578.5845, 284.2936, 266.2851
56 HexCer (d18:1/16:0) C40H77NO8 11.65 700.5722 90.23 520.4977, 502.4891, 282.2819, 264.2683, 252.2643
57 HexCer (d18:1/20:0) C44H85NO8 14.31 756.6328 98.50 738.6248, 576.5731, 282.2748, 264.2694, 252.2673
58 HexCer (d18:1/22:0) C46H89NO8 15.95 784.6661 98.10 766.6539, 622.6147, 604.6016, 586.5895, 282.2804, 264.2681, 252.2644
59 HexCer (d18:1/23:0) C47H91NO8 16.60 798.6817 93.90 780.6693, 618.6176, 600.6079, 282.2786, 264.2683, 252.2675
60 HexCer (d18:1/24:0) C48H93NO8 17.27 812.6972 90.51 794.6858, 632.6339, 614.6225, 282.2791, 264.2683, 252.2681
61 HexCer (d18:1/24:1) C48H91NO8 16.05 810.6786 87.89 630.6161, 612.6090, 282.2784, 264.2686, 252.2670
[IS-6] HexCer (d18:1/12:0) C36H69NO8 9.98 644.5093 - 626.4985, 464.4457, 446.4346, 282.2790, 264.2683, 252.2684
LacCer 62 LacCer (d18:0/22:0) C52H101NO13 14.39 948.7346 98.47 624.6283, 606.6159, 284.2937, 266.2884
63 LacCer (d18:1/16:0) C46H87NO13 12.02 862.6245 99.73 844.6111, 538.5173, 520.5067, 282.2785, 264.2679, 252.2678
64 LacCer (d18:1/22:0) C52H99NO13 15.73 946.7177 92.24 928.7105, 928.7105, 604.6023, 586.5924, 282.2796, 264.2682, 252.2669
65 LacCer (d18:1/24:0) C54H103NO13 15.14 974.7502 99.16 956.7359, 794.6845, 632.6315, 614.6225, 282.2775, 264.2675, 252.2685
66 LacCer (d18:1/24:1) C54H101NO13 15.86 972.7346 98.93 954.7245, 792.6653, 630.6171, 612.6074, 282.2782, 264.2680, 252.2672
[IS-7] LacCer (d18:1/12:0) C42H79NO13 9.78 806.5621 - 788.5510, 626.5002, 464.4464, 446.4358, 264.2686
SM 67 SM (d16:1/14:0) C35H71N2O6P 11.53 647.5109 98.44 236.2362, 184.0737
68 SM (d17:0/18:0) C40H83N2O6P 15.14 719.6062 96.03 252.2691, 184.0731
69 SM (d18:0/14:0) C37H77N2O6P 13.10 677.5592 98.82 266.2830, 184.0729
70 SM (d18:0/16:0) C39H81N2O6P 14.43 705.5905 98.83 266.2810, 184.0727
71 SM (d18:0/18:0) C41H85N2O6P 15.85 733.6218 95.37 266.2899, 184.0736
72 SM (d18:0/20:0) C43H89N2O6P 17.30 761.6531 95.46 266.2787,184.0725
73 SM (d18:0/22:0) C45H93N2O6P 18.87 789.6844 99.17 266.2881, 184.0725
74 SM (d18:0/24:0) C47H97N2O6P 20.75 817.7157 99.36 266.2808, 184.0724
75 SM (d18:1/14:0) C37H75N2O6P 12.59 675.5436 99.00 264.2671, 184.0729
76 SM (d18:1/16:0) C39H79N2O6P 13.82 703.5755 99.19 264.2661, 184.0728
77 SM (d18:1/16:3) C39H73N2O6P 12.59 697.5279 97.13 264.2659, 184.0728
78 SM (d18:1/17:0) C40H81N2O6P 14.53 717.5904 98.69 264.2618, 184.0728
79 SM (d18:1/18:0) C41H83N2O6P 15.24 731.6062 98.06 264.2685, 184.0729
80 SM (d18:1/18:1) C41H81N2O6P 14.21 729.5926 86.17 264.2614, 184.0726
81 SM (d18:1/18:2) C41H79N2O6P 14.41 727.5737 99.30 264.2659, 184.0727
82 SM (d18:1/18:3) C41H77N2O6P 13.82 725.5569 94.58 264.2608, 184.0725
83 SM (d18:1/19:0) C42H85N2O6P 15.98 745.6218 99.44 264.2675, 184.0729
84 SM (d18:1/19:1) C42H83N2O6P 14.92 743.6064 97.01 264.2699, 184.0730
85 SM (d18:1/20:0) C43H87N2O6P 16.69 759.6361 91.31 264.2691, 184.0729
86 SM (d18:1/20:1) C43H85N2O6P 15.65 757.6218 99.58 264.2687, 184.0725
87 SM (d18:1/20:2) C43H83N2O6P 14.52 755.6062 98.54 264.2703, 184.0733
88 SM (d18:1/20:3) C43H81N2O6P 15.24 753.5905 91.53 264.2691, 184.0728
89 SM (d18:1/21:0) C44H89N2O6P 17.45 773.6531 99.62 264.2663, 184.0731
90 SM (d18:1/21:1) C44H87N2O6P 16.18 771.6367 98.99 264.2676, 184.0729
91 SM (d18:1/22:0) C45H91N2O6P 18.20 787.6682 89.66 264.2738, 184.0729
92 SM (d18:1/22:1) C45H89N2O6P 17.10 785.6521 90.18 264.2700, 184.0729
93 SM (d18:1/22:2) C45H87N2O6P 15.85 783.6374 98.59 264.2717, 184.0728
94 SM (d18:1/22:3) C45H85N2O6P 16.71 781.6218 94.77 264.2674, 184.0723
95 SM (d18:1/23:0) C46H93N2O6P 19.02 801.6844 99.32 264.2665, 184.0725
96 SM (d18:1/23:2) C46H89N2O6P 16.57 797.6506 92.95 264.2660, 184.0730
97 SM (d18:1/23:3) C46H87N2O6P 17.45 795.6354 81.68 264.2723, 184.0732
98 SM (d18:1/24:0) C47H95N2O6P 19.98 815.7001 97.84 264.2705, 184.0724
99 SM (d18:1/24:1) C47H93N2O6P 18.28 813.6844 98.88 264.2691, 184.0728
100 SM (d18:1/24:4) C47H87N2O6P 15.44 807.6375 97.83 264.2698, 184.0731
101 SM (d18:1/25:0) C48H97N2O6P 20.79 829.7155 99.43 264.2667, 184.0732
102 SM (d18:1/25:1) C48H95N2O6P 19.24 827.7001 95.78 264.2600, 184.0728
103 SM (d18:1/25:3) C48H91N2O6P 19.02 823.6665 96.01 264.2643, 184.0731
104 SM (d18:1/25:4) C48H89N2O6P 17.85 821.6506 88.64 264.2666, 184.0719
105 SM (d18:1/26:1) C49H97N2O6P 20.21 841.7157 99.25 264.2691, 184.0725
106 SM (d18:1/26:2) C49H95N2O6P 18.81 839.7001 99.73 264.2754, 184.0730
107 SM (d18:1/26:3) C49H93N2O6P 19.98 837.6800 95.27 264.2679, 184.0730
108 SM (d18:1/26:4) C49H91N2O6P 18.28 835.6683 94.37 264.2731, 184.0735
109 SM (d18:2/18:1) C41H79N2O6P 14.41 727.5749 98.92 262.2556, 184.0727
110 SM (d18:2/18:3) C41H75N2O6P 12.90 723.5436 90.63 262.2628, 184.0733
111 SM (d18:2/20:0) C43H85N2O6P 15.48 757.6211 92.69 262.2501, 184.0730
112 SM (d18:2/20:2) C43H81N2O6P 15.24 753.5905 91.53 262.2516, 184.0708
113 SM (d18:2/20:3) C43H79N2O6P 14.21 751.5749 86.38 262.2509, 184.0731
114 SM (d18:2/21:0) C44H87N2O6P 16.40 771.6353 98.99 262.2554, 184.0731
115 SM (d18:2/23:0) C46H91N2O6P 17.84 799.6679 98.81 781.6544, 262.2526, 184.0726
116 SM (d18:2/24:0) C47H93N2O6P 18.28 813.6842 98.28 262.2562, 184.0728
117 SM (d18:2/24:2) C47H89N2O6P 16.30 809.6533 98.67 262.2502, 184.0728
118 SM (d20:0/24:4) C49H93N2O6P 19.98 837.6844 87.77 294.3110, 184.0738
119 SM (d20:1/23:4) C48H89N2O6P 17.85 821.6531 93.97 292.3001, 184.0730
120 SM (t18:0/16:1) C39H79N2O7P 13.32 719.5698 96.54 300.2822, 264.2643, 184.0729
[IS-8] SM (d18:1/12:0) C35H71N2O6P 9.94 647.5116 - 282.2776, 264.2681, 252.2660, 184.0731

1 IS, internal standard; So, sphingosine; Sa, sphinganine; S1P, sphingosine-1-phosphate; Cer, ceramide; C1P, ceramide-1-phosphate; HexCer, hexosylceramide; LacCer, lactosylceramide; SM, sphingomyelin. 2 Annotation of the sphingoid backbone denotes the number of hydroxyl groups, the number of carbon atoms, and the number of the unsaturation degree (e.g., d means two hydroxyl groups; t means three hydroxyl groups (i.e., phyto-)); annotation of the fatty acid chain indicates the number of carbon atoms and the number of unsaturation degree. 3 HexCer includes glucosylceramide (GlcCer) and galactosylceramide (GalCer), which cannot be distinguished by this method.

In the current analysis, MS signals might be interfered by isomeric or isobaric ions. A major interference in SPL identification is the isomeric species that have same molecular formula, thus, MS/MS data are necessary for discrimination. For example, the extracted ion chromatogram of m/z 652.6602 (mass accuracy within 5 ppm) yielded two Cer peaks at 20.3 and 20.9 min, respectively (Figure 3a). Further checking their MS/MS spectra revealed characteristic product ions corresponding to d18:0 (m/z 266.2839) and d20:0 (m/z 294.3151) backbones, providing evidence for the differentiation of the two isomers. Another issue is the isobaric interference from sodium adduct ions of SPLs. As seen in Figure 3b, the [M + H]+ ion of SM (d18:2/24:2) (calculated m/z 809.6533) coincides exactly with the m/z for [M + Na]+ ion of SM (d18:1/22:0) (calculated m/z 809.6516). In this case, the “real” [M + H]+ ion could be unambiguously assigned by the observation of its corresponding [M + Na]+ ion. Compared with other SPLs, identification of SMs is relatively difficult because they are more prone to form sodium adducts. It should be noticed that sufficient chromatographic separation aids in the elimination of isomeric/isobaric interferences and, therefore, facilitates accurate characterization and quantification of these species.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

(a) Differentiation of SPL isomers by targeted-MS/MS analysis. Two peaks in EIC of m/z 652.6602 showed characteristic fragment ion corresponding to Cer (d18:0/24:0) (m/z 266.2839) and Cer (d20:0/22:0) (m/z 294.3151); (b) Differentiation of [M + H]+ of SM (d18:2/24:2) and [M + Na]+ of SM (d18:1/22:0) that with the same exact m/z. The “real” [M + H]+ of SM (d18:2/24:2) was assigned by the observation of its corresponding [M + Na]+ ion. Cer, ceramide; SM, sphingomyelin.

On the basis of optimized separation, linear regression models were constructed by plotting carbon number vs. retention time of SPLs sharing the same sphingoid backbone and unsaturated degree (Figure S2) [7,8]. Goodness of fit (R2 > 0.998 for each series) implies its capability for predicting retention behavior of the species given its chain composition, as well as for aiding in identification. This is also beneficial for the analysis of other biological samples enriched in SPLs, such as neural cells and tissues.

2.2. Method Validation for Quantitative Profiling

The established UPLC-Q-TOF-MS method was further validated for SPL quantification [7]. Aliquots of pooled serum from control rats were utilized for the method validation. Linearity was determined by spiking eight internal standards (IS) into samples prior to extraction at a series of spiked levels from 0.0167 to 25 µmol/L. Each sample was prepared in duplicate and measured twice. Calibration curves were constructed by linear regression. A wide dynamic range over three orders of magnitude was achieved for all IS with correlation coefficients (R2) better than 0.995. Limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) were defined as the lowest concentration when signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of three and 10 were obtained, respectively. As shown in Table S1, the LOD and LOQ values of 8 IS ranged from 0.11–2.80 nmol/L and 0.36–9.33 nmol/L, respectively.

Intraday reproducibility was assessed by analyzing six replicates of the serum samples at different times within one day. For interday reproducibility, nine replicates of samples were measured during three consecutive days (each day three samples were prepared and analyzed). Endogenous SPLs belonging to different subcategories were randomly selected and relative standard deviations (RSDs) were used to evaluate the reproducibility. As seen in Figure S3, the RSDs of intraday and interday variations for eleven representative SPLs were lower than 4.6% and 8.8%, respectively. Recovery was verified by comparing peak areas of IS spiked into samples before and after SPL extraction at three different levels (5, 50, and 500 pmol). At each spiked level, triplicates of samples were prepared and analyzed. The extraction recoveries of all IS were between 91.3% and 108.5% with RSDs less than 12.5% (Table S2). All above results demonstrated that the proposed method was acceptable for routine SPL profiling.

2.3. Application in Study of RA and IDM Intervention in Rats

To show the potential of the developed method, sphingolipidomic profiling was applied to rat serum samples obtained from control, model, and IDM-treated groups. A PLS-DA method was then used to visualize the lipid variations among these samples (Figure 4). The score plot showed a clear separation between the control and model groups in the first dimension, indicating a distinct arthritis induced by CFA. After the treatment of IDM, the serum SPL profiles were found to move away from the models and exhibit a tendency to restore to the controls, reflecting a protective effect of IDM against RA. Additionally, alterations of differential SPLs contributing to the classification were also investigated via one-way ANOVA analysis. Twenty-six SPLs were, therefore, selected as potential inflammatory markers, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

PLS-DA scores plot of rat serum data in control group (green triangles, n = 7), model group (red squares, n = 7), and IDM group (blue dots, n = 7).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Altered levels of SPL markers in the control, model and IDM-treated rats. Data are represented as mean ± SD (n = 7 in each group). *, Δ p < 0.05 and **, ΔΔ p < 0.01 from one-way ANOVA analysis. The markers colored in red indicate their levels were significantly reversed by IDM treatment. Cer, Ceramide; So, sphingosine; Sa, sphinganine; S1P, sphingoid-1-phosphate; HexCer, hexosylceramide; SM, sphingomyelin.

In the identified markers, Cers, HexCers, So, Sa, and S1P displayed up-regulation in the arthritic model rats, while SMs were down-regulated. These results suggest that an impaired SPL metabolism is involved in RA (Figure 6). During inflammation, the key cytokine TNF-α can induce the overexpression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and promote the release of pro-inflammatory prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) [2,12]. TNF-α also stimulates specific SPL metabolic enzymes, including ceramidase (CDase) and sphingosine kinase (SphK), to increase the levels of Cers and S1P [13,14]. As the structural core of SPLs, Cer is thought to have crucial roles in the development of inflammation Recent evidence has revealed that Cer accumulation enhances the COX-2 expression and PEG2 liberation, giving rise to various inflammatory diseases [15,16]. In addition to Cer, S1P is also able to activate the COX-2 enzyme and trigger the production of PEG2 [14]. SphK activation and high S1P levels have been reported in the synovial fluids of patients with RA [17]. Therefore, our findings of significant increment of Cers (together with their metabolites HexCers or So) and S1P in arthritic rats indicate an involvement of TNF-α-mediated inflammation in RA. Furthermore, neutral sphingomyelinase-2 (nSMase-2), which hydrolyzes SM into Cer, plays an important role in the inflammatory process. This enzyme has been shown to be activated by TNF-α, resulting in a reduction in SMs and of elevation of Cers observed in this study [18]. We here propose that the increased activities of nSMase-2 and accelerated SM hydrolysis are also contributed to the pathogenesis of RA.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Proposed mechanistic pathways for the inflammation in RA and anti-arthritic effects of IDM. Upward and downward arrows represent up-regulation and down-regulation, respectively. Abbreviations: TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-α; AA, arachidonic acid; PGE2, prostaglandin E2; COX-2, cyclooxygenase-2; SM, sphingomyelin; nSMase, neutralsphingomyelinase; Cer, ceramide; Sa&So, sphinganine and sphingosine; S1P, sphingosine-1-phosphate; HexCer, hexosylceramide.

The present work further demonstrated that IDM administration could ameliorate the CFA-induced RA in rats. IDM is a common nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that has been effectively used in the management of arthritis disease. Its mechanism of action is through inhibition of COX-2 activity to block the biosynthesis of PEG2 [19]. As seen in Figure 5, the levels of specific SPL markers, including Cers and their metabolites, were significantly reversed by IDM treatment. These results indicate that IDM exerts anti-arthritic effects by down-regulating Cer synthesis, leading to the suppression of COX-2 activation and resulting PEG2 production in RA (Figure 6). In contrast, no significant intervention effects were observed for most SMs, suggesting that IDM has less impact on the nSMase-2-activated SM hydrolysis pathway. Our sphingolipidomic data, thus, affirm and extend previous research on the therapeutic actions of IDM.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Chemicals and Materials

The IS mixture (25 µmol/L for each SPLs in ethanol, catalog LM-6005) was purchased from Avanti Polar Lipids (Alabaster, AL, USA). It was composed of uncommon SPLs including So (d17:1), Sa (d17:0), S1P (d17:1), Cer (d18:1/12:0), C1P (d18:1/12:0), GlcCer (d18:1/12:0), and LacCer (d18:1/12:0), and SM (d18:1/12:0). Complete Freund’s adjuvant (CFA), ammonium acetate (NH4Ac) and formic acid (HCOOH) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). LC-MS-grade methanol (MeOH), chloroform (CHCl3), and isopropanol (IPA) were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ) was purified with a Milli-Q system (Millipore, Burlington, MA, USA). All other chemicals used were of analytical grade. Indomethacin (IDM) was obtained from Shanghai Shyndec Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China).

3.2. Animal Experiment

All experimental procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Laboratory Animal Center of East China University of Science and Technology (project code: 20160917-2, approved date: 17 September, 2016). A total of 21 male SD rats (180 ± 10 g) were purchased from Shanghai SLAC Laboratory Animal Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). All animals were housed in an air-conditioned room at temperature of 25 ± 1 °C, relative humidity of 50 ± 10%, and 12 h dark/light cycle. The rats were fed with certified standard chow and tap water ad libitum. After one week of acclimation, rats were randomly divided into three groups as follows: the control, model, and IDM groups (n = 7 in each group). The model rats and IDM treated rats were injected intradermally with CFA (0.1 mL) for 20 days to induce arthritis. The control rats received an equal amount of physiological saline during the whole experiment. From days 11 to 20, the IDM group was injected intraperitoneally with IDM at a dose of 3 mg/kg body weight. At the end of the period, all animals were sacrificed and the sera were obtained for the following analysis.

3.3. Sample Pretreatment

The extraction of rat serum SPLs was according to our established procedures with minor modifications [8]. Briefly, 0.75 mL of MeOH:CHCl3 (2:1, v/v) and 10 µL of IS (each of 50 pmol amount) were added into 100 µL of rat serum. After sonication for 30 s, the mixture was incubated at 48 °C for 12 h. After cooling, 75 µL of KOH (1 mol/L in MeOH) was added and then incubated at 37 °C for 2 h. After cooling to room temperature, 3 µL of acetic acid was added to neutralize the mixture. The single-phase mixture was centrifuged and the supernatants were collected. The residue was re-extracted with 1 mL of MeOH:CHCl3 (1:2, v/v), centrifuged, and the supernatants were combined. The residue was dissolved in 0.4 mL of MeOH:CHCl3 (2:1, v/v) and 1 mL of CHCl3 and 2 mL of H2O was added followed by vortex mixing for 1 min. After centrifugation, the lower phase extract was collected and incorporated. The upper phase fraction was re-extracted with 1 mL of CHCl3, which was also combined with the extract. After extraction, the extract was evaporated to dryness under a gentle stream of nitrogen. The dried residue was reconstituted in 150 µL of MeOH, sonicated for 30 s, and filtered through a 0.22 µm syringe filter (Millipore, Burlington, MA, USA) into vials (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) for UPLC-MS analysis.

3.4. Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry

An optimized UPLC-Q-TOF-MS condition established by our group was employed with several revisions [8]. Briefly, chromatographic separation was performed on a Zorbax Eclipse Plus C18 column (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.8 µm, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) using an Agilent 1290 UPLC system (Santa Clara, CA, USA), equipped with a binary solvent delivery system and a high-performance auto-sampler. The mobile phase consisted of (A) MeOH:H2O:HCOOH (60:40:0.2, v/v/v) and (B) MeOH:IPA:HCOOH (10:90:0.2, v/v/v), both containing 10 mM NH4Ac. The gradient was as follows (flow rate of 0.35 mL/min): 0–3 min, 0% to 10% B; 3–5 min, 10% to 40% B; 5–5.3 min, 40% to 55% B; 5.3–8 min, 55% to 60% B; 8–8.5 min, 60% to 80% B; 8.5–10.5 min, 80% to 80% B; 10.5–16 min, 80% to 90% B; 16–19 min, 90% to 90% B; 19–22 min, 90% to 100% B; 22–26 min, 100% to 100% B. The column temperature was maintained at 40 °C and the injection volume was 2 µL.

Both qualitative and quantitative analysis was carried out using an Agilent 6530 Q-TOF mass spectrometer (Santa Clara, CA, USA), equipped with an electrospray ionization (ESI) source. The instrument was operated under 4 GHz mode to obtain high resolution data. ESI conditions were as follows: positive ion mode, capillary voltage 3500 V, nebulizer 35 psi, drying gas 10 L/min, gas temperature 350 °C, skimmer voltage 65 V, octopole RF voltage 750 V, fragmentor voltage 150 V. The collision energies (CEs) of targeted-MS/MS analysis were set at 10, 20, and 40 eV, respectively. Mass spectra were recorded over a range of m/z 50–1500. A reference solution was sprayed as continuous calibration using the following reference masses: m/z 121.0509 and 922.0098. All MS and MS/MS data was processed with MassHunter Workstation Software (version B.06.00, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

3.5. Data Processing and Statistics

Agilent MassHunter Workstation software (version B.06.00) was employed for data processing. Identification of SPLs in rat serum were based on their accurate MS and MS/MS data. Relative quantification was carried out under MS mode and peak areas of the extracted ion chromatograms (EICs) for each SPL were integrated. The quantitative results were obtained by IS normalization and calculated as follows: Concentration of target SPL (µmol/L) = (Area of target SPL/Area of corresponding IS) × spiked concentration of IS. Eight IS corresponding to each subcategory are listed in Table 1. All quantitative data were converted to Microsoft Excel format and imported into SIMCA-P+ 13.0 software (Umetrics, Umea, Sweden) for PLS-DA analysis. Statistical tests for identifying differentially expressed SPLs were performed with SPSS software (version 22.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Group variations were compared using one-way ANOVA analysis with a critical p value set to 0.05.

4. Conclusions

In summary, an UPLC-Q-TOF-MS-based sphingolipidomic approach was developed for the comprehensive identification and quantification of SPLs in rat serum. The benefits from the optimized LC-MS conditions, isomeric/isobaric interferences were reduced and a total of 120 SPLs covering seven subcategories were identified. The method was validated and demonstrated good reproducibility (overall RSDs ≤ 8.8%) and accuracy (overall recoveries ≥ 91.3%) with a wide linear range. This method was then applied to investigate the SPL alterations in RA rats and the intervention effects of IDM. PLS-DA analysis showed a clear separation of the model and control groups, while the IDM group exhibited a trend to recover to the controls. Twenty-six significantly changed SPL markers were explored, and levels of Cers and their metabolites were found to be reversed by IDM treatment. The therapeutic effects of IDM may be attributed to the inhibition of Cer-mediated COX-2 activation and resulting PEG2 liberation in RA. All of the above results show the promising potential of this method for understanding RA and the anti-arthritic mechanisms of relevant drugs.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to Yue-Rong Wang (East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China) for technical support in the UPLC-Q-TOF-MS analysis.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online, Figure S1. Characteristic MS/MS spectra of all identified SPLs by targeted-MS/MS analysis; Figure S2. Linear regression models constructed by plotting carbon number vs. retention time for SPLs; Figure S3. Intra- and inter-day RSDs of randomly selected SPLs in rat serum samples; Table S1. Linearity and sensitivity testing results of eight IS spiked in rat serum extracts; Table S2. Recovery testing results of eight IS spiked in rat serum extracts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: H.Z. and P.H.; Methodology: F.Q.; Software: M.Z.; Validation: F.Q., H.Z. and P.H.; Formal Analysis: M.Z.; Investigation: F.Q.; Resources: M.Z.; Data Curation: M.Z.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation: F.Q.; Writing—Review and Editing: H.Z.; Visualization: H.Z.; Supervision: H.Z. and P.H.; Project Administration: H.Z. and P.H.; Funding Acquisition: H.Z. and P.H.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81202493), the Opening Project of Shanghai Key Laboratory of New Drug Design (No. 17DZ2271000), the Fundamental Research of Funds from the Central Universities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Sample Availability: Samples of the rat serum and IS mixture used in this study are available from the authors.

References

  • 1.Merrill A.H. Sphingolipid and glycosphingolipid metabolic pathways in the era of sphingolipidomics. Chem. Rev. 2011;111:6387–6422. doi: 10.1021/cr2002917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Maceyka M., Spiegel S. Sphingolipid metabolites in inflammatory disease. Nature. 2014;510:58–67. doi: 10.1038/nature13475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ryland L.K., Fox T.E., Liu X., Loughran T.P., Kester M. Dysregulation of sphingolipid metabolism in cancer. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2011;11:138–149. doi: 10.4161/cbt.11.2.14624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hojjati M., Li Z.Q., Zhou H.W., Tang S.S., Huan C.M., Ooi E., Lu S.D., Jiang X.C. Effect of myriocin on plasma sphingolipid metabolism and atherosclerosis in apoE-deficient mice. J. Biol. Chem. 2005;280:10284–10289. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M412348200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.He X.X., Huang Y., Li B., Gong C.X., Schuchman E.H. Deregulation of sphingolipid metabolism in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol. Aging. 2010;31:398–408. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2008.05.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shaner R.L., Allegood J.C., Park H., Wang E., Kelly S., Haynes C.A., Sullards M.C., Merrill A.H. Quantitative analysis of sphingolipids for lipidomics using triple quadrupole and quadrupole linear ion trap mass spectrometers. J. Lipid Res. 2009;50:1692–1707. doi: 10.1194/jlr.D800051-JLR200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li J., Hu C.X., Zhao X.J., Dai W.D., Chen S.L., Lu X., Xu G.W. Large-scaled human serum sphingolipid profiling by using reversed-phase liquid chromatography coupled with dynamic multiple reaction monitoring of mass spectrometry: Method development and application in hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Chromatogr. A. 2013;1320:103–110. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.10.064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wang J.R., Zhang H.Y., Yau L.F., Mi J.N., Lee S., Lee K.C., Hu P., Liu L., Jiang Z.H. Improved sphingolipidomic approach based on ultra-high performance liquid chromatography and multiple mass spectrometries with application to cellular neurotoxicity. Anal. Chem. 2014;86:5688–5696. doi: 10.1021/ac5009964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Xie L.M., Yau L.F., Jiang Z.H., Zhang L.Y., Xia Y., Wang J.R. Sphingolipidomic study of davidiin-treated HepG2 human hepatocellular carcinoma cells using UHPLC-MS. RSC Adv. 2017;7:55249–55256. doi: 10.1039/C7RA11266A. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bollag W.B. Potential role of sphingosine 1-phosphate in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. J. Lipid Res. 2008;49:2281–2282. doi: 10.1194/jlr.E800016-JLR200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hu P.F., Chen Y., Cai P.F., Jiang L.F., Wu L.D. Sphingosine-1-phosphate: A potential therapeutic target for rheumatoid arthritis. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2011;38:4225–4230. doi: 10.1007/s11033-010-0545-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hoxha M. A systematic review on the role of eicosanoid pathways in rheumatoid arthritis. Adv. Med. Sci. 2018;63:22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.advms.2017.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hannun Y.A., Obeid L.M. Principles of bioactive lipid signalling: Lessons from sphingolipids. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008;9:139–150. doi: 10.1038/nrm2329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wollny T., Watek M., Durnas B., Niemirowicz K., Piktel E., Zendzian-Piotrowska M., Gozdz S., Bucki R. Sphingosine-1-phosphate metabolism and its role in the development of inflammatory bowel disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017;18:741. doi: 10.3390/ijms18040741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhang H.N., Li J.F., Li L.H., Liu P.S., Wei Y.X., Qian Z.J. Ceramide enhances COX-2 expression and VSMC contractile hyperreactivity via ER stress signal activation. Vasc. Pharmacol. 2017;96:26–32. doi: 10.1016/j.vph.2017.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Claycombe K.J., Wu D.Y., Nikolova-Karakashian M., Palmer H., Beharka A., Paulson K.E., Meydani S.N. Ceramide mediates age-associated increase in macrophage Cyclooxygenase-2 expression. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277:30784–30791. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M204463200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kitano M., Hla T., Sekiguchi M., Kawahito Y., Yoshimura R., Miyazawa K., Iwasaki T., Sano H., Saba J.D., Tam Y.Y. Sphingosine 1-phosphate/sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1 signaling in rheumatoid synovium: Regulation of synovial proliferation and inflammatory gene expression. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2006;54:742–753. doi: 10.1002/art.21668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wu B.X., Clarke C.J., Hannun Y.A. Mammalian neutral sphingomyelinases: Regulation and roles in cell signaling responses. Neuromol. Med. 2010;12:320–330. doi: 10.1007/s12017-010-8120-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nalamachu S., Wortmann R. Role of indomethacin in acute pain and inflammation management: A review of the literature. Postgrad. Med. 2014;126:92–97. doi: 10.3810/pgm.2014.07.2787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials


Articles from Molecules : A Journal of Synthetic Chemistry and Natural Product Chemistry are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES