Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using bone marrow matrix to analyze meprobamate for forensic toxicological purposes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bone marrow (BM) analysis is of forensic interest for postmortem toxicological investigations where blood samples are unavailable or unusable. Due to the lack of studies, it remains difficult to interpret concentrations of xenobiotics measured in this matrix. Based on a statistical approach published previously to interpret meprobamate concentrations in bile and vitreous humor, we propose here a diagnostic test for interpretation of BM meprobamate concentrations from analysis of 99 sets of autopsy data. The mean age was 48 years (range 18–80 years, one unknown) for males and 50 years (range 19–80 years, one unknown) for females, with a male/female ratio at 0.768. A BM concentration threshold of 11.3 μg/g was found to be statistically equivalent to that of a blood meprobamate concentration threshold of 50 μg/ml in distinguishing overdose from therapeutic use. The intrinsic qualities of this diagnostic test were good with sensitivity of 0.82 and specificity of 0.92. Compared to previous tests published with the same objective on vitreous humor and bile, this study shows that BM is a useful alternative matrix to reveal meprobamate overdose when blood, vitreous humor, and bile are not available or unusable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cartiser N, Bevalot F, Fanton L, Gaillard Y, Guitton J (2011) State-of-the-art of bone marrow analysis in forensic toxicology: a review. Int J Legal Med 125(2):181–198. doi:10.1007/s00414-010-0525-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Winek CL, Janssen JK (1982) Blood versus bone marrow isopropanol concentrations in rabbits. Forensic Sci Int 20(1):11–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Winek CL, Susa D (1982) Blood versus bone marrow methanol concentrations in rabbits. Forensic Sci Int 19(2):165–175. doi:0379-0738(82)90042-1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Winek CL, Costantino AG, Wahba WW, Collom WD (1985) Blood versus bone marrow pentobarbital concentrations. Forensic Sci Int 27(1):15–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Winek CL, Westwood SE, Wahba WW (1990) Plasma versus bone marrow desipramine: a comparative study. Forensic Sci Int 48(1):49–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Maeda H, Oritani S, Nagai K, Tanaka T, Tanaka N (1997) Detection of bromisovalum from the bone marrow of skeletonized human remains: a case report with a comparison between gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS). Med Sci Law 37(3):248–253

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kojima T, Okamoto I, Miyazaki T, Chikasue F, Yashiki M, Nakamura K (1986) Detection of methamphetamine and amphetamine in a skeletonized body buried for 5 years. Forensic Sci Int 31(2):93–102. doi:0379-0738(86)90193-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bal TS, Hewitt RW, Hiscutt AA, Johnson B (1989) Analysis of bone marrow and decomposed body tissue for the presence of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene. J Forensic Sci Soc 29(3):219–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Noguchi TT, Nakamura GR, Griesemer EC (1978) Drug analyses of skeletonizing remains. J Forensic Sci 23(3):490–492

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kudo K, Sugie H, Syoui N, Kurihara K, Jitsufuchi N, Imamura T, Ikeda N (1997) Detection of triazolam in skeletal remains buried for 4 years. Int J Legal Med 110(5):281–283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Higuchi T, Kogawa H, Satoh M, Tatsuno M, Tsuchihashi H (1996) Application of high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry to drug screening. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 17(1):21–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McIntyre LM, King CV, Boratto M, Drummer OH (2000) Post-mortem drug analyses in bone and bone marrow. Ther Drug Monit 22(1):79–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cartiser N, Bevalot F, Chatenay C, Le Meur C, Gaillard Y, Malicier D, Guitton J, Fanton L (2011) Postmortem measurement of caffeine in bone marrow: influence of sample location and correlation with blood concentration. Forensic Sci Int 210(1–3):149–153. doi:S0379-0738(11)00114-9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fanton L, Bevalot F, Gustin MP, Paultre CZ, Le Meur C, Malicier D (2009) Interpretation of drug concentrations in an alternative matrix: the case of meprobamate in bile. Int J Legal Med 123(2):97–102. doi:10.1007/s00414-008-0259-x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bevalot F, Gustin MP, Cartiser N, Le Meur C, Malicier D, Fanton L (2011) Interpretation of drug concentrations in an alternative matrix: the case of meprobamate in vitreous humor. Int J Legal Med 125(3):463–468. doi:10.1007/s00414-011-0560-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Removal of meprobamate from French market. http://ansm.sante.fr/S-informer/Informations-de-securite-Retraits-de-lots-et-de-produits/Specialites-contenant-du-meprobamate-seul-voie-orale-Retrait-du-marche/(language)/fre-FR. Accessed Jan 2013

  17. Prouty RW, Anderson WH (1990) The forensic science implications of site and temporal influences on postmortem blood-drug concentrations. J Forensic Sci 35(2):243–270

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoizey G, Gozalo C, Canas F, Fornes P, Binet L, Al T, Oget O, Millart H, Lamiable D (2008) Distribution tissulaire post-mortem du méprobamate: à propos de 8 cas. Ann Toxicol Anal 20(1):47–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Flanagan RJ (1998) Guidelines for the interpretation of analytical toxicology results and unit of measurement conversion factors. Ann Clin Biochem 35(Pt 2):261–267

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. TIAFT reference blood level list of therapeutic and toxic substances (2005) http://www.tiaft.org/. Accessed July 2007

  21. Gaillard Y, Billault F, Pepin G (1997) Meprobamate overdosage: a continuing problem. Sensitive GC-MS quantitation after solid phase extraction in 19 fatal cases. Forensic Sci Int 86(3):173–180. doi:S0379073897021282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. S. Jickells, A Negrusz (eds) (2008) Clarke’s analytical forensic toxicology. Pharmaceutical, London

  23. Takatori T, Tomii S, Terazawa K, Nagao M, Kanamori M, Tomaru Y (1991) A comparative study of diazepam levels in bone marrow versus serum, saliva and brain tissue. Int J Legal Med 104(4):185–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Watterson JH, Botman JE (2009) Detection of acute diazepam exposure in bone and marrow: influence of tissue type and the dose-death interval on sensitivity of detection by ELISA with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry confirmation. J Forensic Sci 54(3):708–714. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.00998.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. The Open Data Drug and Drug Target Database. http://www.drugbank.ca/ Accessed 04 Sept 2012

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Marie Barbier and Lise Magné for their technical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire LAT LUMTOX, 71 Avenue Rockefeller, 69003, Lyon, France

    F. Bévalot, N. Cartiser, Y. Gaillard & C. Le Meur

  2. Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire de Médecine Légale, Groupement Hospitalier Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 5 place d’Arsonval, 69433, Lyon Cedex 03, France

    F. Bévalot, L. Fanton & D. Malicier

  3. EMR UCBL/HCL 3738 Ciblage Thérapeutique en Oncologie, Faculté de médecine Lyon-Sud, Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, 165 chemin du grand Revoyet, 69495, Pierre Bénite Cedex, France

    F. Bévalot & J. Guitton

  4. Service de biostatistique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 162 Avenue Lacassagne, 69424, Lyon Cedex 03, France

    M. P. Gustin

  5. Département de santé publique, Institut des sciences pharmaceutiques et biologiques, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, EA 4173, 8 avenue Rockefeller, 69373, Lyon cedex 08, France

    M. P. Gustin

  6. Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Est, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France

    L. Fanton

  7. INSA Lyon, Laboratoire CREATIS, CNRS UMR 5220, INSERM U1044, INSA, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon1, Avenue Jean Capelle, 69621, Villeurbanne Cedex, France

    L. Fanton

  8. Laboratoire de biochimie-toxicologie, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 165 chemin du grand Revoyet, 69495, Pierre Bénite Cedex, France

    J. Guitton

  9. Laboratoire de Toxicologie, Institut des sciences pharmaceutiques et biologiques, Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, 8 avenue Rockefeller, 69373, Lyon cedex 08, France

    J. Guitton

Authors
  1. F. Bévalot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. P. Gustin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Cartiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y. Gaillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Le Meur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. Fanton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. Guitton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. D. Malicier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Bévalot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bévalot, F., Gustin, M.P., Cartiser, N. et al. Using bone marrow matrix to analyze meprobamate for forensic toxicological purposes. Int J Legal Med 127, 915–921 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-013-0833-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-013-0833-8

Keyword

Search

Navigation