Prices (external)
Lipid Profiling:
Our current protocol is to have scientists extract their own lipids before sending them to us. A protocol for extraction from Arabidopsis leaves, protocol for extraction of animal lipids, and other protocols are available. We recommend that samples be dried before shipping, and then shipped to us in dry ice. Samples delivered in person need to be dissolved in exactly 1.0 ml chloroform. Please contact Mary Roth at mrroth@ksu.edu before sending samples.
LIPID PROFILING PRICES (effective November 2024):
| Polar lipid profiling (by direct-infusion precursor and neutral loss head-group scanning - see lists) (1,2) | $83.61 (per sample) |
| Additional charge when only 1 to 5 polar lipid profiling samples are processed through any analysis; waived one time per client | $129.36 |
| Polar lipid profiling (sample #51 or above) | $69.31 (per sample) |
| Diacylglycerol analysis by direct infusion (data format may vary) |
$108.03 (per sample) |
| Triacylglycerol analysis by direct infusion (data format may vary) | $108.03 (per sample) |
| Fatty acid methyl esters by GC | $74.30 (per sample) |
| Sterols by GC or GC-MS | $79.97 (per sample) |
| Analysis by measuring transitions (MRM) during direct infusion (1-50 samples in set)(3) | $59.75 (per sample) |
| Analysis by measuring transitions (MRM) during direct infusion (51-500 samples in set) | $47.72 (per sample) |
| Analysis by measuring transitions (MRM) during direct infusion (501 or more samples in set) | $42.83 (per sample) |
| Technical time (e.g., method development or extra prep) | $55.58 to $64.68 per hour |
(1) All profiling prices include:
(a) Typical sample preparation time including derivatization and/or sample
addition
(b) Addition of one internal standard (or preformulated mixture)
(c) Analysis through electrospray ionization mass spectrometry
(d) Typical data processing time
(2) Method: Similar to Welti et al., 2002, J. Biol. Chem., 277, 31994; detailed in Shiva et al. 2013, Methods Mol. Biol.,1009, 79
(3) Method: Similar to Vu et al., 2014, Plant J, 80, 728; detailed in Song et al. 2020; Methods Mol. Biol., 2156, 187
Other analyses: Please inquire
*NOTES:
- All fees are set on a "break-even" pricing schedule.
Standard Mixtures for Lipid Profiling and Quantitation:
We have available the standard mixtures the KLRC Analytical Laboratory uses in its lipid profiling and quantitation methods. Please inquire for further information. Note: These are for use at your lab/facility. The cost of necessary internal standards is included in the "per sample" prices noted above for lipid profiling at KLRC.
| Phospholipid internal standard mixture (for 100 samples) | $351.35 |
| Phospholipid internal standard mixture (for 1000 samples) | $2,996.08 |
| Galactolipid internal standard mixture (for 100 samples) | $118.37 |
| Galactolipid internal standard mixture (for 1000 samples) | $1,013.47 |
*Standard mixtures were prepared using the methods outlined in Welti et al., 2002, J. Biol. Chem., 277, 31994. However, because mass spectrometers have improved in sensitivity since 2002, the amount of internal standard provided per sample is approximately 1/5 of that indicated in that paper. Amounts are similar to those shown in Xiao et al., 2010 (supplemental data). Exact components may differ slightly but the PL mix provides 2 standards each for PC, LPC, PE, LPE, PG, LPG, PI, PS, and PA. The GL mix contains hydrogenated MGDG and DGDG. Additional details on components are available from Mary Roth (mrroth@ksu.edu) and will be provided with purchase of the standards. Please note that we have done our best to quantify and combine these internal standard components accurately, but the mixtures do not come with any guarantees.
PLEASE NOTE: We do ask that you acknowledge the KLRC in any publication containing data or conclusions drawn from data generated at the KLRC Analytical Laboratory as follows:
The lipid analyses described in this work were performed at the Kansas Lipidomics Research Center Analytical Laboratory. Instrument acquisition and lipidomics method development were supported by the National Science Foundation (including support from the Major Research Instrumentation program; most recent award DBI-1726527), K-IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) of National Institute of Health (P20GM103418), USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Hatch/Multi-State project 7001195), and Kansas State University..
Inquiries: mrroth@ksu.edu
Please include a subject line.