# Comparison of methods for DMSP measurements in dinoflagellate cultures

Amandine Caruana, Eva Bucciarelli, Céline Deleporte, Emilie Le Floc'H, Fabienne Hervé, Manon Le Goff

► To cite this version:

Amandine Caruana, Eva Bucciarelli, Céline Deleporte, Emilie Le Floc'H, Fabienne Hervé, et al. Comparison of methods for DMSP measurements in dinoflagellate cultures. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 2024, 10.1002/lom3.10618. hal-04567173

HAL Id: hal-04567173

https://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-04567173

Submitted on 6 May 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Comparison of methods for DMSP measurements in dinoflagellate cultures

Amandine Caruana, Eva Bucciarelli, Céline Deleporte, Emilie Le Floc'H, Fabienne Hervé, Manon Le Goff

► To cite this version:

Amandine Caruana, Eva Bucciarelli, Céline Deleporte, Emilie Le Floc'H, Fabienne Hervé, et al. Comparison of methods for DMSP measurements in dinoflagellate cultures. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 2024, 10.1002/lom3.10618. hal-04567173

HAL Id: hal-04567173

https://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-04567173v1

Submitted on 6 May 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
LIMNOLOGY
and
OCEANOGRAPHY: METHODS

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Linnol. Oceanogr.: Methods 2024
© 2024 The Authors. *Linnology and Oceanography: Methods* published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography. doi: 10.1002/lom3.10618

Comparison of methods for DMSP measurements
in dinoflagellate cultures

Amandine M. N. Caruana Ⓒ,<fnref n="1" />* Eva Bucciarelli,<fnref n="2" /> Céline Deleporte,<fnref n="1" /> Emilie Le Floc’h,<fnref n="3" /> Fabienne Hervé,<fnref n="4" />
Manon Le Goff<fnref n="2" />

Abstract

A comparison of three analytical methods (the indirect GC-FPD and MIMS, and direct LC-MS/MS) for dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) measurements was conducted to assess their accuracy and reliability. The three methods showed a linear response but are distinguished by their linearity range, the largest being for MIMS. All three methods showed good precision on *Alexandrium minutum* samples (2–12%). The variability between the three methods when comparing analyses of *A. minutum* replicates was 11%, with the DMSP measurements by LC-MS/MS being the highest. This result also confirms that indirect DMSP measurement after hydrolysis for GC or MIMS methods does not lead to an overestimation of DMSP values in *A. minutum*. A special focus was made on the more recent LC-MS/MS method including further assays in sample preparation and storage from cultures of the dinoflagellate *A. minutum*. Dinoflagellate cells should be harvested by gentle filtration (< 5 cm Hg) or slow centrifugation (500 × g) to retrieve the largest DMSP pool. For the LC-MS/MS method, MeOH used for cell extraction should be added prior to freezing (to prevent DMSP degradation). Samples will then be stable in frozen storage for at least 2 months. Finally, direct and indirect methods are complementary for identifying the exact DMSP fraction among dimethylsulfide-producing compounds that compose total and particulate DMSP pools issued from newly screened organisms or environmental samples.

Dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) is the biogenic precursor of dimethylsulfide (DMS), a gas involved in climate regulation and, the global sulfur cycle (Charlson et al. 1987). DMS is also a keystone metabolite in the chemical ecology of some phytoplankton cells that impact their surrounding organisms, from microbes to the upper trophic chain predators (Ferrer and Zimmer 2013; Caruana et al. 2020). The scope of research interest in DMSP is widening due to our need to understand and preserve ocean life as well as to characterize the global sulfur budget and climate change. Dinoflagellates appear to be one of the major phytoplankton groups producing DMSP (Caruana and Malin 2014) and the taxonomic group

predominantly expressing the algal DMS-releasing enzyme
from DMSP among eukaryotes (Shemi et al. 2023).

Since DMS has become worthy of scientific concern, several
methods have been developed for DMSP measurements in sea-
water or in cultures of marine organisms, for use during field
campaigns or in laboratory experiments. Gas chromatography
(GC) was initially used to measure the DMS gas released in stoi-
chiometric proportion by strong alkali treatment of DMSP, thus
providing an indirect measurement method (White 1982).
While GC coupled with a flame photometric detector (GC-FPD)
was the most common method for analyzing DMSP, DMS, and
DMSP lyase (DLA) (an enzyme that cleaves DMSP into DMS) in
seawater and microalgae cultures (Keller et al. 1989; Steinke
et al. 2000; Caruana 2010; Caruana et al. 2012), GC was occa-
sionally coupled with various other detection systems such as
pulsed FPD (PFPD), flame ionization detector, sulfur chemilumi-
nescence detection or a mass spectrometer (MS) (Table 1)
(Careri et al. 2001; Niki et al. 2004; Swan et al. 2014). Other
methods have also been used on a sporadic basis for measuring
DMS in seawater such as atmospheric pressure chemical
ionization–mass spectrometry (Saltzman et al. 2009; McCulloch

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of
this article.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

<footnote n="1">¹IFREMER, PHYTOX, PHYSALG Laboratory, Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Univ Brest, CNRS, IRD, IFREMER, LEMAR, IUEM, Plouzané, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³MARBEC, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, IFREMER, IRD, Sète, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴IFREMER, PHYTOX, METALG Laboratory, Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote>*Correspondence: amandine.caruana@ifremer.fr</footnote>
LIMNOLOGY
and
OCEANOGRAPHY: METHODS

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Linnol. Oceanogr.: Methods 2024
© 2024 The Authors. *Linnology and Oceanography: Methods* published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography. doi: 10.1002/lom3.10618

Comparison of methods for DMSP measurements
in dinoflagellate cultures

Amandine M. N. Caruana Ⓒ,<fnref n="1" />* Eva Bucciarelli,<fnref n="2" /> Céline Deleporte,<fnref n="1" /> Emilie Le Floc'h,<fnref n="3" /> Fabienne Hervé,<fnref n="4" />
Manon Le Goff<fnref n="2" />

Abstract

A comparison of three analytical methods (the indirect GC-FPD and MIMS, and direct LC-MS/MS) for dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) measurements was conducted to assess their accuracy and reliability. The three methods showed a linear response but are distinguished by their linearity range, the largest being for MIMS. All three methods showed good precision on *Alexandrium minutum* samples (2–12%). The variability between the three methods when comparing analyses of *A. minutum* replicates was 11%, with the DMSP measurements by LC-MS/MS being the highest. This result also confirms that indirect DMSP measurement after hydrolysis for GC or MIMS methods does not lead to an overestimation of DMSP values in *A. minutum*. A special focus was made on the more recent LC-MS/MS method including further assays in sample preparation and storage from cultures of the dinoflagellate *A. minutum*. Dinoflagellate cells should be harvested by gentle filtration (< 5 cm Hg) or slow centrifugation (500 × g) to retrieve the largest DMSP pool. For the LC-MS/MS method, MeOH used for cell extraction should be added prior to freezing (to prevent DMSP degradation). Samples will then be stable in frozen storage for at least 2 months. Finally, direct and indirect methods are complementary for identifying the exact DMSP fraction among dimethylsulfide-producing compounds that compose total and particulate DMSP pools issued from newly screened organisms or environmental samples.

Dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) is the biogenic precursor of dimethylsulfide (DMS), a gas involved in climate regulation and, the global sulfur cycle (Charlson et al. 1987). DMS is also a keystone metabolite in the chemical ecology of some phytoplankton cells that impact their surrounding organisms, from microbes to the upper trophic chain predators (Ferrer and Zimmer 2013; Caruana et al. 2020). The scope of research interest in DMSP is widening due to our need to understand and preserve ocean life as well as to characterize the global sulfur budget and climate change. Dinoflagellates appear to be one of the major phytoplankton groups producing DMSP (Caruana and Malin 2014) and the taxonomic group

predominantly expressing the algal DMS-releasing enzyme
from DMSP among eukaryotes (Shemi et al. 2023).

Since DMS has become worthy of scientific concern, several
methods have been developed for DMSP measurements in sea-
water or in cultures of marine organisms, for use during field
campaigns or in laboratory experiments. Gas chromatography
(GC) was initially used to measure the DMS gas released in stoi-
chiometric proportion by strong alkali treatment of DMSP, thus
providing an indirect measurement method (White 1982).
While GC coupled with a flame photometric detector (GC-FPD)
was the most common method for analyzing DMSP, DMS, and
DMSP lyase (DLA) (an enzyme that cleaves DMSP into DMS) in
seawater and microalgae cultures (Keller et al. 1989; Steinke
et al. 2000; Caruana 2010; Caruana et al. 2012), GC was occa-
sionally coupled with various other detection systems such as
pulsed FPD (PFPD), flame ionization detector, sulfur chemilumi-
nescence detection or a mass spectrometer (MS) (Table 1)
(Careri et al. 2001; Niki et al. 2004; Swan et al. 2014). Other
methods have also been used on a sporadic basis for measuring
DMS in seawater such as atmospheric pressure chemical
ionization–mass spectrometry (Saltzman et al. 2009; McCulloch

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of
this article.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

<footnote n="1">¹IFREMER, PHYTOX, PHYSALG Laboratory, Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Univ Brest, CNRS, IRD, IFREMER, LEMAR, IUEM, Plouzané, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³MARBEC, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, IFREMER, IRD, Sète, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴IFREMER, PHYTOX, METALG Laboratory, Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote>*Correspondence: amandine.caruana@ifremer.fr</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Analytical methods used for DMSP, DMS, and DMSP lyase (DLA) measurements in diverse sample types: standards only, seawater (SW), and organisms, during laboratory or fieldwork with their associated references. Methods are presented according to their category and chronological order of publication within the category, with their associated references.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Analytical methods</th><th rowspan="2">Sample types: standards, SW, organisms</th><th colspan="2">DMS, DLA, DMSP fractions:</th><th rowspan="2">References</th></tr><tr><th>t—total, p—particulate, d—dissolved</th><th>Lab—L, field—F</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GC-FPD gas chromatography with flame photometric detection</td><td>Many microalgal groups including dinoflagellates</td><td>DMSPp, d, t, and DMS</td><td>L</td><td>Keller et al. (1989)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD</td><td>SW</td><td>DMSPt, p and d</td><td>F</td><td>Belviso et al. (1993)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD</td><td>Coccolithophores SW</td><td>DLA</td><td>L, F</td><td>Steinke et al. (2000)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD gravity filtration</td><td>SW</td><td>DMSPp, d</td><td>F</td><td>Kiene and Slezak (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD</td><td>Dinoflagellates</td><td>DMSPp, d, t DLA</td><td>L</td><td>Caruana (2010)<br>Caruana et al. (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-PFPD pulsed FPD</td><td>Diatoms cyanobacteria</td><td>DMSPt, p</td><td>L</td><td>Bucciarelli et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD with different columns</td><td>Standards</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Swan et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-PFPD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GC-SCD sulfur chemiluminescence detection</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PTR-MS proton-transfer reaction mass spectrometry</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD acidification method</td><td>Macroalgae</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Bucciarelli et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-FPD (liquid chromatography with flame photometric detection)</td><td>Standards</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Howard and Russell (1996)</td></tr><tr><td>On line purge and trap-GC-FID flame ionization detection</td><td>Standards macroalgae</td><td>DMS</td><td>L</td><td>Careri et al. (2001)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-MS</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>L</td><td>Smith et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Use of deuterated internal standards, acidification</td><td>Coccolithophores</td><td>DMSP</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SPME—GC-MS</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS, DMSPt, p, d, DLA</td><td>F</td><td>Niki et al. (2004)</td></tr><tr><td>PTR-MS</td><td>Coccolithophores SW</td><td>In vivo production of DMSP</td><td>L, F</td><td>Stefels et al. (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>PT-APCI-MS-MS</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>F</td><td>McCulloch et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>UPLC-MS QTOF C18 column/DMSP derivatization /internal stds</td><td>Microalgae (haptophyte) macroalgae</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Wiesemeier and Pohnert (2007)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS (QTOF, HILIC) internal stds</td><td>Standards</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Spielmeyer and Pohnert (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS with PFPP column</td><td>Coral tissues</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Li et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS/MS</td><td>Mammalian serum</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Lenky et al. (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS</td><td>Coccolithophore dinoflagellate</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Gebser and Pohnert (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS and HS-GC-MS</td><td>Corals</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L, F</td><td>Swan et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD and LC-MS (UHPLC, HILIC)</td><td>Bacteria</td><td>DMSPt</td><td>L</td><td>Curson et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD and LC-MS (UHPLC, HILIC) extraction by acetonitrile</td><td>Bacteria microalgae including haptophytes, diatom, and dinoflagellate</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Curson et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS/MS</td><td>Dinoflagellates</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Caruana et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS (ZIC-HILIC, UHPLC, ESI-QTOF)</td><td>Microalgae including dinoflagellates, haptophytes, cryptophyte, and diatoms</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Gebser et al. (2020)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Analytical methods used for DMSP, DMS, and DMSP lyase (DLA) measurements in diverse sample types: standards only, seawater (SW), and organisms, during laboratory or fieldwork with their associated references. Methods are presented according to their category and chronological order of publication within the category, with their associated references.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Analytical methods</th><th rowspan="2">Sample types: standards, SW, organisms</th><th colspan="2">DMS, DLA, DMSP fractions:</th><th rowspan="2">References</th></tr><tr><th>t—total, p—particulate, d—dissolved</th><th>Lab—L, field—F</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GC-FPD gas chromatography with flame photometric detection</td><td>Many microalgal groups including dinoflagellates</td><td>DMSPp, d, t, and DMS</td><td>L</td><td>Keller et al. (1989)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD</td><td>SW</td><td>DMSPt, p and d</td><td>F</td><td>Belviso et al. (1993)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD</td><td>Coccolithophores SW</td><td>DLA</td><td>L, F</td><td>Steinke et al. (2000)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD gravity filtration</td><td>SW</td><td>DMSPp, d</td><td>F</td><td>Kiene and Slezak (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD</td><td>Dinoflagellates</td><td>DMSPp, d, t DLA</td><td>L</td><td>Caruana (2010)<br>Caruana et al. (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-PFPD pulsed FPD</td><td>Diatoms cyanobacteria</td><td>DMSPt, p</td><td>L</td><td>Bucciarelli et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD with different columns</td><td>Standards</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Swan et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-PFPD</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GC-SCD sulfur chemiluminescence detection</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PTR-MS proton-transfer reaction mass spectrometry</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD acidification method</td><td>Macroalgae</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Bucciarelli et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-FPD (liquid chromatography with flame photometric detection)</td><td>Standards</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Howard and Russell (1996)</td></tr><tr><td>On line purge and trap-GC-FID flame ionization detection</td><td>Standards macroalgae</td><td>DMS</td><td>L</td><td>Careri et al. (2001)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-MS</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>L</td><td>Smith et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Use of deuterated internal standards, acidification</td><td>Coccolithophores</td><td>DMSP</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SPME—GC-MS</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS, DMSPt, p, d, DLA</td><td>F</td><td>Niki et al. (2004)</td></tr><tr><td>PTR-MS</td><td>Coccolithophores SW</td><td>In vivo production of DMSP</td><td>L, F</td><td>Stefels et al. (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>PT-APCI-MS-MS</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>F</td><td>McCulloch et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>UPLC-MS QTOF C18 column/DMSP derivatization /internal stds</td><td>Microalgae (haptophyte) macroalgae</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Wiesemeier and Pohnert (2007)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS (QTOF, HILIC) internal stds</td><td>Standards</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Spielmeyer and Pohnert (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS with PFPP column</td><td>Coral tissues</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Li et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS/MS</td><td>Mammalian serum</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Lenky et al. (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS</td><td>Coccolithophore dinoflagellate</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Gebser and Pohnert (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS and HS-GC-MS</td><td>Corals</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L, F</td><td>Swan et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD and LC-MS (UHPLC, HILIC)</td><td>Bacteria</td><td>DMSPt</td><td>L</td><td>Curson et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>GC-FPD and LC-MS (UHPLC, HILIC) extraction by acetonitrile</td><td>Bacteria microalgae including haptophytes, diatom, and dinoflagellate</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Curson et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS/MS</td><td>Dinoflagellates</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Caruana et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS (ZIC-HILIC, UHPLC, ESI-QTOF)</td><td>Microalgae including dinoflagellates, haptophytes, cryptophyte, and diatoms</td><td>DMSPp</td><td>L</td><td>Gebser et al. (2020)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>**Table 1. Continued**</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Analytical methods</th><th rowspan="2">Sample types: standards, SW, organisms</th><th colspan="3">DMS, DLA, DMSP fractions:</th><th rowspan="2">References</th></tr><tr><th>t—total, p—particulate, d—dissolved</th><th>Lab—L, field—F</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MIMS membrane inlet mass spectrometry</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>F</td><td></td><td>Tortell (2005)</td></tr><tr><td>MIMS</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>F</td><td></td><td>Nemcek et al. (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>MIMS</td><td>Haptophyte SW</td><td>DMSPd</td><td>L, F</td><td></td><td>Barak-Gavish et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Capillary electrophoresis and UV detection</td><td>Macroalgae, sugarcane</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td></td><td>Zhang et al. (2005)<br>Zhang et al. (2001)</td></tr><tr><td>qNMR spectroscopy</td><td>Corals</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L, F</td><td></td><td>Tapiolas et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Mini-CIMS: chemical ionization mass spectrometer for continuous measurements onboard ship</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>F</td><td></td><td>Saltzman et al. (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>BAPI-PIMS: benzene-assisted photoionization positive ion mobility spectrometry</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>F</td><td></td><td>Peng et al. (2020)</td></tr></tbody></table>

et al. 2020), which allows almost continuous measurement onboard ship; membrane inlet MS (MIMS) for DMS and DMSP measurements in seawater or in cultures (Tortell 2005; Barak-Gavish et al. 2018); or proton-transfer reaction MS for DMS in seawater or in vivo DMSP production (Stefels et al. 2009; McCulloch et al. 2020). However, because DMS precursors other than DMSP have been reported, including minor ones (Howard and Russell 1996; Nakamura et al. 1997; Gebser and Pohnert 2013; Gebser et al. 2020), indirect DMSP measurement after chemical cleavage to DMS may overestimate the true DMSP value. Thus, further analytical methods were developed to directly measure DMSP in marine organisms such as capillary electrophoresis with UV detection, qNMR spectroscopy or liquid chromatography LC coupled with FPD or with a MS: UPLC-MS and LC-MS/MS (Howard and Russell 1996; Zhang et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2005; Wiesemeier and Pohnert 2007; Li et al. 2010; Tapiolas et al. 2013; Caruana et al. 2020).

Despite the number of different techniques, the availability of several of them raises questions on their equivalence, sensitivity, and accuracy and thus highlights the need to understand their respective benefits and appropriate use, particularly for measuring DMSP in phytoplankton cultures. In the case of dinoflagellate cultures, the response of the organisms to the method, particularly sample preparation, needs to be considered. In the present study, we used *Alexandrium minutum* as a dinoflagellate model for DMSP production as it is known to produce substantial DMSP concentrations per cell and per cell volume (Caruana et al. 2012; Caruana and Malin 2014; Caruana et al. 2020). This species is also particularly sensitive to turbulence and handling stress (Caruana 2010; Berdalet et al. 2011), requiring careful manipulation to maintain its cell integrity. It also contains DLA,

leading to potential DMSP loss and bias in its measurement. Hence, the choice of methods should also pay attention to storage conditions that can prevent further DMSP enzymatic cleavage or degradation in the sample (Russell and Howard 1996). Overall, obtaining correct results depends on each step of sample preparation from culture sampling to chemical analyses, including sample handling, cell harvesting method and storage conditions.

In this study, we made a comparison of three analytical methods for DMSP measurements (GC-FPD, MIMS, and LC-MS/MS) applied to *A. minutum* culture samples, focusing particularly on the most recent method, LC-MS/MS. The comparison included the linearity of standards, the range of detectable standards, and the comparison and precision of DMSP concentrations in *A. minutum* samples between analytical methods. We also paid special attention to the sample preparation methods (cell harvest and storage) that may influence the DMSP results in order to determine the reliability and assess the benefits of these preparation methods.

## Materials and procedures

### Culture conditions and sampling

*A. minutum* strain RCC7037 was grown in xenic batch culture with L1 medium without silicate as this is not required for dinoflagellates. The culture was illuminated by cool light tubes over a 12 : 12 photoperiod at 100 µmol photons m⁻² s⁻¹ light intensity and kept at 17°C with manual stirring. A sole culture was sampled in an exponential phase within a 2-h interval to supply several samples of the same biological matrix for analyses by the different methods. Cell density was measured on three replicates of culture samples by means of a particle counter (Multisizer III; Beckman Coulter). Concentrations of DMSP
<table><caption>**Table 1. Continued**</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Analytical methods</th><th rowspan="2">Sample types: standards, SW, organisms</th><th colspan="2">DMS, DLA, DMSP fractions:</th><th rowspan="2">References</th></tr><tr><th>t—total, p—particulate, d—dissolved</th><th>Lab—L, field—F</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MIMS membrane inlet mass spectrometry</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>F</td><td>Tortell (2005)</td></tr><tr><td>MIMS</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>F</td><td>Nemcek et al. (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>MIMS</td><td>Haptophyte SW</td><td>DMSPd</td><td>L, F</td><td>Barak-Gavish et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Capillary electrophoresis and UV detection</td><td>Macroalgae, sugarcane</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L</td><td>Zhang et al. (2005)<br>Zhang et al. (2001)</td></tr><tr><td>qNMR spectroscopy</td><td>Corals</td><td>DMSP</td><td>L, F</td><td>Tapiolas et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Mini-CIMS: chemical ionization mass spectrometer for continuous measurements onboard ship</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>F</td><td>Saltzman et al. (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>BAPI-PIMS: benzene-assisted photoionization positive ion mobility spectrometry</td><td>SW</td><td>DMS</td><td>F</td><td>Peng et al. (2020)</td></tr></tbody></table>

et al. 2020), which allows almost continuous measurement onboard ship; membrane inlet MS (MIMS) for DMS and DMSP measurements in seawater or in cultures (Tortell 2005; Barak-Gavish et al. 2018); or proton-transfer reaction MS for DMS in seawater or in vivo DMSP production (Stefels et al. 2009; McCulloch et al. 2020). However, because DMS precursors other than DMSP have been reported, including minor ones (Howard and Russell 1996; Nakamura et al. 1997; Gebser and Pohnert 2013; Gebser et al. 2020), indirect DMSP measurement after chemical cleavage to DMS may overestimate the true DMSP value. Thus, further analytical methods were developed to directly measure DMSP in marine organisms such as capillary electrophoresis with UV detection, qNMR spectroscopy or liquid chromatography LC coupled with FPD or with a MS: UPLC-MS and LC-MS/MS (Howard and Russell 1996; Zhang et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2005; Wiesemeier and Pohnert 2007; Li et al. 2010; Tapiolas et al. 2013; Caruana et al. 2020).

Despite the number of different techniques, the availability of several of them raises questions on their equivalence, sensitivity, and accuracy and thus highlights the need to understand their respective benefits and appropriate use, particularly for measuring DMSP in phytoplankton cultures. In the case of dinoflagellate cultures, the response of the organisms to the method, particularly sample preparation, needs to be considered. In the present study, we used *Alexandrium minutum* as a dinoflagellate model for DMSP production as it is known to produce substantial DMSP concentrations per cell and per cell volume (Caruana et al. 2012; Caruana and Malin 2014; Caruana et al. 2020). This species is also particularly sensitive to turbulence and handling stress (Caruana 2010; Berdalet et al. 2011), requiring careful manipulation to maintain its cell integrity. It also contains DLA,

leading to potential DMSP loss and bias in its measurement. Hence, the choice of methods should also pay attention to storage conditions that can prevent further DMSP enzymatic cleavage or degradation in the sample (Russell and Howard 1996). Overall, obtaining correct results depends on each step of sample preparation from culture sampling to chemical analyses, including sample handling, cell harvesting method and storage conditions.

In this study, we made a comparison of three analytical methods for DMSP measurements (GC-FPD, MIMS, and LC-MS/MS) applied to *A. minutum* culture samples, focusing particularly on the most recent method, LC-MS/MS. The comparison included the linearity of standards, the range of detectable standards, and the comparison and precision of DMSP concentrations in *A. minutum* samples between analytical methods. We also paid special attention to the sample preparation methods (cell harvest and storage) that may influence the DMSP results in order to determine the reliability and assess the benefits of these preparation methods.

## Materials and procedures

### Culture conditions and sampling

*A. minutum* strain RCC7037 was grown in xenic batch culture with L1 medium without silicate as this is not required for dinoflagellates. The culture was illuminated by cool light tubes over a 12 : 12 photoperiod at 100 µmol photons m⁻² s⁻¹ light intensity and kept at 17°C with manual stirring. A sole culture was sampled in an exponential phase within a 2-h interval to supply several samples of the same biological matrix for analyses by the different methods. Cell density was measured on three replicates of culture samples by means of a particle counter (Multisizer III; Beckman Coulter). Concentrations of DMSP
were measured by GC-FPD, MIMS, and LC-MS/MS analyses. The analysis of total DMSP (DMSPt = particulate and dissolved DMSP) required a direct sampling of 3 mL of culture for GC-FPD or MIMS (Caruana et al. 2012). The analysis of particulate DMSP (DMSPp) relied on a cell harvesting process to measure intracellular DMSP concentrations. This was done from a 3 mL culture sample for GC-FPD and MIMS, and from a 7 or 10 mL sample for LC-MS/MS.

## Experimental design for standard and culture assays

A range of standards were prepared in duplicate and run for each of the three methods (0.015–120 nmol S or 5 nmol L⁻¹–40 µmol L⁻¹ for LC-MS/MS, 0.015–480 nmol S or 5 nmol L⁻¹–160 µmol L⁻¹ for GC-FPD and MIMS) to characterize their linearity and the lowest detectable standard concentration. For GC-FPD and MIMS, the preparation of standards required the dilution of an aqueous DMSP stock solution in acidified water (0.2 mol L⁻¹ HCl final concentration). To correspond to culture samples potentially being in seawater (DMSPt) or ultrapure water (filter and cell pellets for DMSPp measurements), standards were prepared in artificial seawater (final salinity 35) and ultrapure water to assess any potential discrepancies in the results. For LC-MS/MS, standards were prepared in methanol. In addition, to test for the potential effect of biological matrix on DMSP measurements (Spielmeyer and Pohnert 2010), standards for LC-MS/MS analyses were also prepared in the presence of cells of *Thalassiosira weissflogii* IFR-TWE-97 (cell density = 2.4 × 10⁶ cells mL⁻¹, biovolume = 2.3 × 10⁹ µm³ mL⁻¹), a diatom that does not produce DMSP.

Two experiments with *A. minutum* cultures in exponential phase were conducted to compare DMSP measurements

obtained by the three analytical methods LC-MS/MS, GC-FPD, and MIMS (Fig. 1). The first experiment assessed the method of cell harvesting by centrifugation. Given that mechanical stress may lead to DMSP loss (Wolfe et al. 2002), centrifugation could offer a more suitable alternative to filtration when gravity filtration is not possible, for example, when harvesting dense phytoplanktonic cultures. A culture of *A. minutum* (42280 cells mL⁻¹) was sampled to measure DMSPp concentrations by LC-MS/MS and to assess the effect of centrifugation speed, fast (3600 × g, 10 min, 4°C) or slow (500 × g, 10 min, 4°C). To determine the most accurate DMSPp value obtained, we measured DMSPt concentrations by GC-FPD and MIMS and used their mean as a reference value to which DMSPp values were compared to see which was the closest. Each treatment was performed on triplicate culture samples.

In the second experiment, another culture of *A. minutum* (24385 cells mL⁻¹) was sampled to test several steps of the sample preparation (Fig. 1). To compare the effects of filtration with those of centrifugation as methods for harvesting dinoflagellate cells, the culture samples were either filtered through a GF/F filter using a hand vacuum pump with weak pressure < 5 cmHg (Caruana 2010; Caruana et al. 2012), or the culture sample was gently centrifuged (500 × g) and the cell pellet retained. These gentle filtration and centrifugation conditions were chosen to limit cell damage and potential DMSPp release. For the indirect methods GC-FPD and MIMS, the filter or cell pellet was acidified and stored as described below (section of Analytical systems and procedures). For the direct method LC-MS/MS, the storage conditions were assessed by comparing the direct freezing of the filters and cell pellets until later MeOH addition or their direct immersion in MeOH followed

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Description of the different DMSP measurement methods tested, including each step from culture sampling to analysis: fast (3600 × g) or slow (500 × g) centrifugation, or filtration, addition of MeOH before or after frozen storage, GC-FPD or MIMS or LC-MS/MS analysis, total DMSP (DMSPt = particulate + dissolved DMSP) or particulate DMSP (DMSPp) measured.</figcaption></figure>
were measured by GC-FPD, MIMS, and LC-MS/MS analyses. The analysis of total DMSP (DMSPt = particulate and dissolved DMSP) required a direct sampling of 3 mL of culture for GC-FPD or MIMS (Caruana et al. 2012). The analysis of particulate DMSP (DMSPp) relied on a cell harvesting process to measure intracellular DMSP concentrations. This was done from a 3 mL culture sample for GC-FPD and MIMS, and from a 7 or 10 mL sample for LC-MS/MS.

## Experimental design for standard and culture assays

A range of standards were prepared in duplicate and run for each of the three methods (0.015–120 nmol S or 5 nmol L⁻¹–40 µmol L⁻¹ for LC-MS/MS, 0.015–480 nmol S or 5 nmol L⁻¹–160 µmol L⁻¹ for GC-FPD and MIMS) to characterize their linearity and the lowest detectable standard concentration. For GC-FPD and MIMS, the preparation of standards required the dilution of an aqueous DMSP stock solution in acidified water (0.2 mol L⁻¹ HCl final concentration). To correspond to culture samples potentially being in seawater (DMSPt) or ultrapure water (filter and cell pellets for DMSPp measurements), standards were prepared in artificial seawater (final salinity 35) and ultrapure water to assess any potential discrepancies in the results. For LC-MS/MS, standards were prepared in methanol. In addition, to test for the potential effect of biological matrix on DMSP measurements (Spielmeyer and Pohnert 2010), standards for LC-MS/MS analyses were also prepared in the presence of cells of *Thalassiosira weissflogii* IFR-TWE-97 (cell density = 2.4 × 10⁶ cells mL⁻¹, biovolume = 2.3 × 10⁹ µm³ mL⁻¹), a diatom that does not produce DMSP.

Two experiments with *A. minutum* cultures in exponential phase were conducted to compare DMSP measurements

obtained by the three analytical methods LC-MS/MS, GC-FPD, and MIMS (Fig. 1). The first experiment assessed the method of cell harvesting by centrifugation. Given that mechanical stress may lead to DMSP loss (Wolfe et al. 2002), centrifugation could offer a more suitable alternative to filtration when gravity filtration is not possible, for example, when harvesting dense phytoplanktonic cultures. A culture of *A. minutum* (42280 cells mL⁻¹) was sampled to measure DMSPp concentrations by LC-MS/MS and to assess the effect of centrifugation speed, fast (3600 × g, 10 min, 4°C) or slow (500 × g, 10 min, 4°C). To determine the most accurate DMSPp value obtained, we measured DMSPt concentrations by GC-FPD and MIMS and used their mean as a reference value to which DMSPp values were compared to see which was the closest. Each treatment was performed on triplicate culture samples.

In the second experiment, another culture of *A. minutum* (24385 cells mL⁻¹) was sampled to test several steps of the sample preparation (Fig. 1). To compare the effects of filtration with those of centrifugation as methods for harvesting dinoflagellate cells, the culture samples were either filtered through a GF/F filter using a hand vacuum pump with weak pressure < 5 cmHg (Caruana 2010; Caruana et al. 2012), or the culture sample was gently centrifuged (500 × g) and the cell pellet retained. These gentle filtration and centrifugation conditions were chosen to limit cell damage and potential DMSPp release. For the indirect methods GC-FPD and MIMS, the filter or cell pellet was acidified and stored as described below (section of Analytical systems and procedures). For the direct method LC-MS/MS, the storage conditions were assessed by comparing the direct freezing of the filters and cell pellets until later MeOH addition or their direct immersion in MeOH followed

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Description of the different DMSP measurement methods tested, including each step from culture sampling to analysis: fast (3600 × g) or slow (500 × g) centrifugation, or filtration, addition of MeOH before or after frozen storage, GC-FPD or MIMS or LC-MS/MS analysis, total DMSP (DMSPt = particulate + dissolved DMSP) or particulate DMSP (DMSPp) measured.</figcaption></figure>
by freezing (−80°C or −20°C). Measurements of DMSPt were
used as reference values for the maximum particulate DMSP
(DMSPp) concentration attainable with any of the three ana-
lytical methods tested. Each treatment for DMSPp or DMSPt
was performed on five replicates of culture samples to allow
robust comparison.

Analytical systems and procedures

GC-FPD

The 3 mL standards and samples were acidified with Normapure HCl in 10 mL vials (0.2 mol L⁻¹ final concentration), sealed and stored at room temperature for 2 months (del Valle et al. 2011). A day before the analysis, the vials were opened to add 2 mL of 10 mol L⁻¹ NaOH and then sealed again. The DMS resulting from the hydroxide decomposition of DMSP after 24 h was determined by direct injection of a headspace subsample into a Shimadzu 2010-Plus Gas Chromatograph. This GC was equipped with a sulfur-selective flame photometric detector (air/H₂: 70 mL min⁻¹/60 mL min⁻¹) and fitted with an equity 1 capillary column (i.d. = 0.32 mm, length = 30 m, Supelco; T = 180°C, carrier gas: He, 6.7 mL min⁻¹). Detector and injection port temperatures were set at 250°C. Based on our standard and sample concentrations, 40 µL samples were collected from the headspace of the vials using a gas-tight syringe and were injected directly into the GC injector port (Bucciarelli et al. 2021). Sample values were calculated based on the calibration curve (y = ax), the intercept being not significantly different from zero.

MIMS

The culture samples (or filters) were acidified with HCl
0.2 mol L⁻¹ final concentration and stored for a couple of
months in the dark at ambient temperature until further ana-
lyses. Twenty-four hours before these analyses, the culture
samples were hydrolyzed with 9 mL of NaOH 2 mol L⁻¹ in
12 mL Exetainers (Labco Ltd.), with the vials filled to the top
to avoid any headspace and thus exclude gas exchange inside
the vial. Concentrations of DMSP were determined following
the MIMS analysis procedure and system thoroughly detailed
in Barak-Gavish et al. (2018). Dissolved DMS concentration
was quantified using a MIMS system (Kana et al. 2006) con-
sisting of a Pfeiffer Vacuum quadrupole MS equipped with a
HiCube 80 pumping station, a QME 220 Prisma Plus analyzer,
and a flow-through silicone capillary membrane inlet (mem-
brane length 25 mm; Bay Instruments). Samples were pumped
from the bottom of the Exetainer tubes using a peristaltic
pump (Minipuls 3; Gilson) at a rate of 1.5 mL min⁻¹ through
a stainless steel capillary tube and gas permeable Silastic mem-
brane immersed in a 30°C water bath (VWR). The vacuum line
integrated a cryotrap (a glass U-Tube held in a Dewar half-
filled with liquid N₂). The level of liquid N₂ was regularly
adjusted to maintain a temperature of −48.6 °C (± 0.2°C)
(continuously checked at the bottom of the U-tube using a

K-thermocouple thermometer HI 93531N Hanna). With an
operating pressure after stabilization typically at 4.10<sup>-6</sup> mbar,
DMS was measured by scanning m/z 62 at a dwell time of
0.5 s using a secondary electron multiplier detector (SEM).
Baseline drift was considered by monitoring the “zero” m/z
62 signal every hour in ultrapure water contained in a stan-
dardization flask held in the same 30°C water bath and con-
tinuously stirred to ensure complete gas equilibrium with the
air. Sample values were calculated based on the calibration
curve (y = ax + b) with “a” being the slope and “b” the
intercept.

LC-MS/MS

Following the frozen storage period, samples for LC-MS/MS
were immersed in MeOH if this had not been previously
added, and sonicated (5 min, Bransonic Ultrasonic Cleaner
2510EDTH; Branson) to complete the cell extraction. The
supernatant was filtered (0.2 µm membrane filters, Nanosep;
Pall) before injection into the LC-MS/MS. The analytic system
was composed of a UFLC XR system (Shimadzu) containing a
Hypersil GOLD HILIC column (150 × 2.1 mm, 3 µm,
ThermoScientific; Thermo Fischer Scientific) and coupled with
a triple-quadrupole MS (4000 Qtrap; ABSciex). Analytical
parameters were applied as previously described (Caruana
et al. 2020). Sample values were calculated based on the cali-
bration curve y = ax + b, and values were corrected to deduce
the intercept such as x = [(y − b)/a] + (b/a), resulting from the
potential matrix effect in the MS.

Statistical analyses

Linear regression with the coefficient of determination R²
were applied to characterize the linear range of the standard
curves for the three analytical methods. To assess any poten-
tial discrepancies in DMSP measurements obtained by the dif-
ferent methods, non-parametric tests were performed using
Statgraphics 18 software. For comparisons between two differ-
ent methods, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) test was applied.
To compare the three methods, a Kruskal–Wallis (K–W) test
was used. Differences between methods was considered signifi-
cant at *p* < 0.05.

Assessment

Analytical measurements

The three analytical methods for measuring DMSP applied
in the experimental conditions described here, show a good
linearity of standards (R² > 0.998, Fig. 2), although over differ-
ent concentration ranges. The indirect method GC-FPD dis-
plays suitable linearity between 2.1 and 240 nmol S
(equivalent to 0.7–80 µmol L⁻¹). The indirect method MIMS
displays broad linearity between 0.015 and 480 nmol S
(5 nmol L⁻¹–160 µmol L⁻¹). It is worth noting, however, that
for this method, the lowest DMSP standards (0.015–3 nmol S)
are best fitted by a shallower slope than when considering all
standards up to 480 nmol S (Supporting Information Fig. S1).
by freezing (−80°C or −20°C). Measurements of DMSPt were
used as reference values for the maximum particulate DMSP
(DMSPp) concentration attainable with any of the three ana-
lytical methods tested. Each treatment for DMSPp or DMSPt
was performed on five replicates of culture samples to allow
robust comparison.

Analytical systems and procedures

GC-FPD

The 3 mL standards and samples were acidified with Normapure HCl in 10 mL vials (0.2 mol L⁻¹ final concentration), sealed and stored at room temperature for 2 months (del Valle et al. 2011). A day before the analysis, the vials were opened to add 2 mL of 10 mol L⁻¹ NaOH and then sealed again. The DMS resulting from the hydroxide decomposition of DMSP after 24 h was determined by direct injection of a headspace subsample into a Shimadzu 2010-Plus Gas Chromatograph. This GC was equipped with a sulfur-selective flame photometric detector (air/H₂: 70 mL min⁻¹/60 mL min⁻¹) and fitted with an equity 1 capillary column (i.d. = 0.32 mm, length = 30 m, Supelco; T = 180°C, carrier gas: He, 6.7 mL min⁻¹). Detector and injection port temperatures were set at 250°C. Based on our standard and sample concentrations, 40 µL samples were collected from the headspace of the vials using a gas-tight syringe and were injected directly into the GC injector port (Bucciarelli et al. 2021). Sample values were calculated based on the calibration curve (y = ax), the intercept being not significantly different from zero.

MIMS

The culture samples (or filters) were acidified with HCl
0.2 mol L⁻¹ final concentration and stored for a couple of
months in the dark at ambient temperature until further ana-
lyses. Twenty-four hours before these analyses, the culture
samples were hydrolyzed with 9 mL of NaOH 2 mol L⁻¹ in
12 mL Exetainers (Labco Ltd.), with the vials filled to the top
to avoid any headspace and thus exclude gas exchange inside
the vial. Concentrations of DMSP were determined following
the MIMS analysis procedure and system thoroughly detailed
in Barak-Gavish et al. (2018). Dissolved DMS concentration
was quantified using a MIMS system (Kana et al. 2006) con-
sisting of a Pfeiffer Vacuum quadrupole MS equipped with a
HiCube 80 pumping station, a QME 220 Prisma Plus analyzer,
and a flow-through silicone capillary membrane inlet (mem-
brane length 25 mm; Bay Instruments). Samples were pumped
from the bottom of the Exetainer tubes using a peristaltic
pump (Minipuls 3; Gilson) at a rate of 1.5 mL min⁻¹ through
a stainless steel capillary tube and gas permeable Silastic mem-
brane immersed in a 30°C water bath (VWR). The vacuum line
integrated a cryotrap (a glass U-Tube held in a Dewar half-
filled with liquid N₂). The level of liquid N₂ was regularly
adjusted to maintain a temperature of −48.6 °C (± 0.2°C)
(continuously checked at the bottom of the U-tube using a

K-thermocouple thermometer HI 93531N Hanna). With an
operating pressure after stabilization typically at 4.10<sup>-6</sup> mbar,
DMS was measured by scanning m/z 62 at a dwell time of
0.5 s using a secondary electron multiplier detector (SEM).
Baseline drift was considered by monitoring the “zero” m/z
62 signal every hour in ultrapure water contained in a stan-
dardization flask held in the same 30°C water bath and con-
tinuously stirred to ensure complete gas equilibrium with the
air. Sample values were calculated based on the calibration
curve (y = ax + b) with “a” being the slope and “b” the
intercept.

LC-MS/MS

Following the frozen storage period, samples for LC-MS/MS
were immersed in MeOH if this had not been previously
added, and sonicated (5 min, Bransonic Ultrasonic Cleaner
2510EDTH; Branson) to complete the cell extraction. The
supernatant was filtered (0.2 µm membrane filters, Nanosep;
Pall) before injection into the LC-MS/MS. The analytic system
was composed of a UFLC XR system (Shimadzu) containing a
Hypersil GOLD HILIC column (150 × 2.1 mm, 3 µm,
ThermoScientific; Thermo Fischer Scientific) and coupled with
a triple-quadrupole MS (4000 Qtrap; ABSciex). Analytical
parameters were applied as previously described (Caruana
et al. 2020). Sample values were calculated based on the cali-
bration curve y = ax + b, and values were corrected to deduce
the intercept such as x = [(y − b)/a] + (b/a), resulting from the
potential matrix effect in the MS.

Statistical analyses

Linear regression with the coefficient of determination R²
were applied to characterize the linear range of the standard
curves for the three analytical methods. To assess any poten-
tial discrepancies in DMSP measurements obtained by the dif-
ferent methods, non-parametric tests were performed using
Statgraphics 18 software. For comparisons between two differ-
ent methods, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) test was applied.
To compare the three methods, a Kruskal–Wallis (K–W) test
was used. Differences between methods was considered signifi-
cant at *p* < 0.05.

Assessment

Analytical measurements

The three analytical methods for measuring DMSP applied
in the experimental conditions described here, show a good
linearity of standards (R² > 0.998, Fig. 2), although over differ-
ent concentration ranges. The indirect method GC-FPD dis-
plays suitable linearity between 2.1 and 240 nmol S
(equivalent to 0.7–80 µmol L⁻¹). The indirect method MIMS
displays broad linearity between 0.015 and 480 nmol S
(5 nmol L⁻¹–160 µmol L⁻¹). It is worth noting, however, that
for this method, the lowest DMSP standards (0.015–3 nmol S)
are best fitted by a shallower slope than when considering all
standards up to 480 nmol S (Supporting Information Fig. S1).
As in any analytical procedure, it is thus recommended to evaluate the best fit of the calibration curve in the range of the samples to be analyzed. The linearity of the direct method LC-MS/MS is in a lower and narrower range of concentrations than for the indirect methods, extending between 0.015 and 3 nmol S (or 5 nmol L⁻¹–1 µmol L⁻¹). The linearity range may be centered or extended for each method by adjusting some sampling parameters or instrument settings. For all analytical methods, the culture volume to be analyzed should be chosen to fall within a detectable range and this volume is an adjustable parameter. For LC-MS/MS, the sample extract in MeOH can be diluted to obtain the correct concentration range, hence, samples should preferably be prepared in excess concentrations to avoid undetectable concentrations. For GC-FPD analyses, the injected headspace volume can potentially be adjusted using a syringe of different volume. For instance, the DMSP concentration range presented here was obtained with a constant injected volume of 40 µL but could be enlarged with lower or higher injected volume, as long as the result remains linear. In addition, the coupling of a purge and trap system upstream of the GC-FPD would allow the detection of pmol S concentrations. The MIMS method generated the largest linearity range in our experimental conditions. However, contrary to other analytical methods, each sample is consumed by the analyses and discarded, therefore preventing technical replicates from being made on a sample. Indeed, the GC-FPD method allows successive measurements of a sample to be made during its analyses to check its repeatability, although the sample is then prone to losses and has to be discarded (unless subsamples are made before NaOH addition), while the LC-MS/MS method used only a few µL of sample and allows the sample extract to be stored for several months and used to further repeat the analyses if necessary.

The lowest detectable standard that responds linearly in the experimental conditions used here, are 0.015 nmol S (5 nmol L⁻¹) for MIMS and LC-MS/MS and 2.1 nmol S (700 nmol L⁻¹) for GC-FPD. The use of seawater or ultrapure water in the preparation of the standards has no significant effect on DMSP measurements with either the GC-FPD or MIMS method (*p* > 0.05, K–S tests for GC-FPD and MIMS; Fig. 2a,b). Otherwise, the detectable standards are the lowest for MIMS and LC-MS/MS. Nevertheless, as indicated above for GC-FPD, the limit can be linearly lowered by increasing the injected headspace volume (e.g., injecting 100 µL of headspace would allow to detect 0.8 nmol). For MIMS, the lowest standard detected here (5 nmol L⁻¹) approaches the detection limits previously reported (0.2–2 nmol L⁻¹), (Tortell 2005; Barak-Gavish et al. 2018). For LC-MS/MS, our lowest detectable standard (5 nmol L⁻¹) is much lower than the detection limit reported by Spielmeyer and Pohnert (2010) and Swan et al. (2017) (20 nmol L⁻¹, 20 µmol L⁻¹). Likewise, our linearity range (5 nmol L⁻¹–1 µmol L⁻¹) is also lower than that reported by Spielmeyer and Pohnert (2010) (60 nmol L⁻¹–50 µmol L⁻¹). The increased sensitivity obtained here likely

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Linear ranges of the standard curves obtained for each of the three analytical methods: GC-FPD (a), MIMS (b), and LC-MS/MS (c). For the indirect methods (a, b), two standard curves show similar results for standards diluted in artificial seawater and freshwater.</figcaption></figure>

resulted from the use of MS in tandem while the previous studies cited used an MS detection system. Nevertheless, Lenky et al. (2012) reported linearity for DMSP up to 30 µmol L⁻¹ with LC-MS/MS and a detection limit of 100 nmol L⁻¹. The lowest detectable standard obtained here for GC-FPD (0.7 µmol L⁻¹) is similar to or higher than the detection limits published elsewhere such as the 0.07, 0.2–0.3,
As in any analytical procedure, it is thus recommended to evaluate the best fit of the calibration curve in the range of the samples to be analyzed. The linearity of the direct method LC-MS/MS is in a lower and narrower range of concentrations than for the indirect methods, extending between 0.015 and 3 nmol S (or 5 nmol L⁻¹–1 µmol L⁻¹). The linearity range may be centered or extended for each method by adjusting some sampling parameters or instrument settings. For all analytical methods, the culture volume to be analyzed should be chosen to fall within a detectable range and this volume is an adjustable parameter. For LC-MS/MS, the sample extract in MeOH can be diluted to obtain the correct concentration range, hence, samples should preferably be prepared in excess concentrations to avoid undetectable concentrations. For GC-FPD analyses, the injected headspace volume can potentially be adjusted using a syringe of different volume. For instance, the DMSP concentration range presented here was obtained with a constant injected volume of 40 µL but could be enlarged with lower or higher injected volume, as long as the result remains linear. In addition, the coupling of a purge and trap system upstream of the GC-FPD would allow the detection of pmol S concentrations. The MIMS method generated the largest linearity range in our experimental conditions. However, contrary to other analytical methods, each sample is consumed by the analyses and discarded, therefore preventing technical replicates from being made on a sample. Indeed, the GC-FPD method allows successive measurements of a sample to be made during its analyses to check its repeatability, although the sample is then prone to losses and has to be discarded (unless subsamples are made before NaOH addition), while the LC-MS/MS method used only a few µL of sample and allows the sample extract to be stored for several months and used to further repeat the analyses if necessary.

The lowest detectable standard that responds linearly in the experimental conditions used here, are 0.015 nmol S (5 nmol L⁻¹) for MIMS and LC-MS/MS and 2.1 nmol S (700 nmol L⁻¹) for GC-FPD. The use of seawater or ultrapure water in the preparation of the standards has no significant effect on DMSP measurements with either the GC-FPD or MIMS method (*p* > 0.05, K-S tests for GC-FPD and MIMS; Fig. 2a,b). Otherwise, the detectable standards are the lowest for MIMS and LC-MS/MS. Nevertheless, as indicated above for GC-FPD, the limit can be linearly lowered by increasing the injected headspace volume (e.g., injecting 100 µL of headspace would allow to detect 0.8 nmol). For MIMS, the lowest standard detected here (5 nmol L⁻¹) approaches the detection limits previously reported (0.2–2 nmol L⁻¹), (Tortell 2005; Barak-Gavish et al. 2018). For LC-MS/MS, our lowest detectable standard (5 nmol L⁻¹) is much lower than the detection limit reported by Spielmeyer and Pohnert (2010) and Swan et al. (2017) (20 nmol L⁻¹, 20 µmol L⁻¹). Likewise, our linearity range (5 nmol L⁻¹–1 µmol L⁻¹) is also lower than that reported by Spielmeyer and Pohnert (2010) (60 nmol L⁻¹–50 µmol L⁻¹). The increased sensitivity obtained here likely

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Linear ranges of the standard curves obtained for each of the three analytical methods: GC-FPD (a), MIMS (b), and LC-MS/MS (c). For the indirect methods (a, b), two standard curves show similar results for standards diluted in artificial seawater and freshwater.</figcaption></figure>

resulted from the use of MS in tandem while the previous studies cited used an MS detection system. Nevertheless, Lenky et al. (2012) reported linearity for DMSP up to 30 µmol L⁻¹ with LC-MS/MS and a detection limit of 100 nmol L⁻¹. The lowest detectable standard obtained here for GC-FPD (0.7 µmol L⁻¹) is similar to or higher than the detection limits published elsewhere such as the 0.07, 0.2–0.3,
1 µmol L⁻¹ reported by Caruana et al. (2012), Kiene and Slezak (2006) and Swan et al. (2014), respectively. Our calibration range is also close to those reported in a previous study by Caruana et al. (2012) (0.7–25 µmol L⁻¹) and in an inter-laboratory calibration exercise by Swan et al. (2014) (1–10 µmol L⁻¹).

For LC-MS/MS analyses, the potential effect of the biological matrix was assessed. The standard curves (50–1000 nmol L⁻¹) realized with or without microalgal cells (*T. weissflogii*) showed no significant difference (*p* > 0.05, K-S test; Supporting Information Fig. S2). The DMSP recovery in the presence of diatom cells was found to be between 90% and 95%. These recovery values may have led to a slight over-estimation of DMSP measurements by LC-MS/MS, although these remain in a similar range to the intraday variation of standards (4% on average for 4 series of 7 standards over a 2–9% range). Moreover, more diatom cells were added to the standard assays than the *A. minutum* cells sampled, and the *A. minutum* sample extract was further diluted prior to LC-MS/MS measurement, thereby reducing potential biological matrix effects (Panuwet et al. 2016).

The precision of several DMSP measurements based on the coefficient of variation obtained on replicates of *A. minutum* samples (*n* = 5) was in the range of 2.5–5.0% for MIMS, 2.4% (*n* = 4) to 7.1% (*n* = 5) for GC-FPD, and 4.8–12.3% for LC-MS/MS. The precision of the methods was directly evaluated on *A. minutum* samples and therefore partly included the variation between culture samplings. The narrow range of precision obtained for all methods indicates that the whole procedure for preparing, storing and analyzing samples allows a good repeatability of DMSP measurements. Indirect methods appear to have a slightly better precision than the direct method suggesting that there could be a slight effect of the biological matrix in the direct method.

## Sample collection

The accuracy of DMSP measurements in dinoflagellate cells does indeed rely on the attention paid to all steps of the method from culture sampling to analytical measurements and their improvement. For harvesting phytoplankton cells from culture or seawater samples, previous studies recommended the use of gentle filtration, taking care to keep the filter wet to avoid cell lysis in contact with air and potential DMSP loss. Gentle filtration can be achieved by gravity filtration of small-volume seawater samples (Kiene and Slezak 2006) or by using a hand vacuum pump carefully maintaining a weak pressure < 5 cmHg in the case of dense phytoplankton cultures (Caruana et al. 2012). Wolfe et al. (2002) underlined that mechanical stress, such as shaking or sparging cultures, may lead to DMSP cleavage to DMS. For cell harvesting from cultures, the filtration step may also be replaced by centrifugation. This is an advantageous method that is rapid, repeatable, and controllable in terms of temperature and speed. Reducing the temperature (4°C) of centrifugation far from its optimal

temperature of 30°C, 40°C, 50°C (Yost and Mitchelmore 2012; Peng et al. 2019; Li et al. 2021), may limit enzyme activity and prevent DMSP degradation from DLAs during the process of cell harvesting.

In the first experiment with culture samples of the dinoflagellate *A. minutum*, DMSPp concentrations measured by LC-MS/MS were lower than DMSPt concentrations from indirect methods (Fig. 3). The fast centrifugation led to a reduced DMSPp concentration (53% of the mean DMSPt of the two indirect methods) compared with that obtained by slow centrifugation (80% of the mean DMSPt). These results agree with those from Wolfe et al. (2002), showing mechanical activation of DMSP cleavage, and thus imply that slow centrifugation is preferable.

In the second experiment (Fig. 4), the centrifugation step (slow) led to significantly higher DMSPp values (mean = 25.4 ± 3.36 nmol mL⁻¹ for all three methods) than the filtration process using a hand vacuum pump (20.7 ± 2.34 nmol mL⁻¹) (*p* < 0.001, K-S test). The centrifugation produced a 16% higher DMSPp concentration (87% of DMSPt obtained by GC) than the filtration process (71% of DMSPt). This result potentially means, on the one hand, that the stress of gentle centrifugation is lower than that of filtration, leading to a smaller loss of DMSP. On the other hand, a higher DMSP value may have resulted from higher DMSP input due to aggregates of organic debris. The remaining bacteria do not influence DMSP measurement in exponentially growing cultures of *A. minutum* since cultures treated with antibiotics were previously shown to have similar DMSP content to untreated cultures (Geffroy 2021). It is not easy to determine which of these two techniques provides the most accurate result, however, the choice between the use of filtration or centrifugation should take into account the scientific objective (particulate, dissolved, or total DMSP) and the cell fragility or colonial or mucal aspects of the dinoflagellate species. In any case, based on our results (Figs. 3, 4), the use of slow (500 × g) centrifugation is recommended for harvesting dinoflagellate cells because high centrifugation pressure may cause considerable loss of DMSP, likely due to cell lysis.

## Sample storage

When samples cannot be analyzed on the day of culture sampling, it is necessary to store them. Storage conditions may also impact the final DMSP concentrations detected in the sample (Russell and Howard 1996; Borges and Champenois 2017); hence, this step also requires attention for method improvement. Storage of samples harvested by filtration and intended for LC-MS/MS analyses does not appear to be affected by whether MeOH was added before or after freezing. However, the addition of MeOH before freezing to cells harvested by centrifugation significantly increases the DMSP content (*p* < 0.05, K-S test; Fig. 4). This suggests that some DMSP could have been lost as the cell pellets were removed from storage and the MeOH added. Conversely, after filtration
1 µmol L⁻¹ reported by Caruana et al. (2012), Kiene and Slezak (2006) and Swan et al. (2014), respectively. Our calibration range is also close to those reported in a previous study by Caruana et al. (2012) (0.7–25 µmol L⁻¹) and in an inter-laboratory calibration exercise by Swan et al. (2014) (1–10 µmol L⁻¹).

For LC-MS/MS analyses, the potential effect of the biological matrix was assessed. The standard curves (50–1000 nmol L⁻¹) realized with or without microalgal cells (*T. weissflogii*) showed no significant difference (*p* > 0.05, K-S test; Supporting Information Fig. S2). The DMSP recovery in the presence of diatom cells was found to be between 90% and 95%. These recovery values may have led to a slight over-estimation of DMSP measurements by LC-MS/MS, although these remain in a similar range to the intraday variation of standards (4% on average for 4 series of 7 standards over a 2–9% range). Moreover, more diatom cells were added to the standard assays than the *A. minutum* cells sampled, and the *A. minutum* sample extract was further diluted prior to LC-MS/MS measurement, thereby reducing potential biological matrix effects (Panuwet et al. 2016).

The precision of several DMSP measurements based on the coefficient of variation obtained on replicates of *A. minutum* samples (*n* = 5) was in the range of 2.5–5.0% for MIMS, 2.4% (*n* = 4) to 7.1% (*n* = 5) for GC-FPD, and 4.8–12.3% for LC-MS/MS. The precision of the methods was directly evaluated on *A. minutum* samples and therefore partly included the variation between culture samplings. The narrow range of precision obtained for all methods indicates that the whole procedure for preparing, storing and analyzing samples allows a good repeatability of DMSP measurements. Indirect methods appear to have a slightly better precision than the direct method suggesting that there could be a slight effect of the biological matrix in the direct method.

## Sample collection

The accuracy of DMSP measurements in dinoflagellate cells does indeed rely on the attention paid to all steps of the method from culture sampling to analytical measurements and their improvement. For harvesting phytoplankton cells from culture or seawater samples, previous studies recommended the use of gentle filtration, taking care to keep the filter wet to avoid cell lysis in contact with air and potential DMSP loss. Gentle filtration can be achieved by gravity filtration of small-volume seawater samples (Kiene and Slezak 2006) or by using a hand vacuum pump carefully maintaining a weak pressure < 5 cmHg in the case of dense phytoplankton cultures (Caruana et al. 2012). Wolfe et al. (2002) underlined that mechanical stress, such as shaking or sparging cultures, may lead to DMSP cleavage to DMS. For cell harvesting from cultures, the filtration step may also be replaced by centrifugation. This is an advantageous method that is rapid, repeatable, and controllable in terms of temperature and speed. Reducing the temperature (4°C) of centrifugation far from its optimal

temperature of 30°C, 40°C, 50°C (Yost and Mitchelmore 2012; Peng et al. 2019; Li et al. 2021), may limit enzyme activity and prevent DMSP degradation from DLAs during the process of cell harvesting.

In the first experiment with culture samples of the dinoflagellate *A. minutum*, DMSPp concentrations measured by LC-MS/MS were lower than DMSPt concentrations from indirect methods (Fig. 3). The fast centrifugation led to a reduced DMSPp concentration (53% of the mean DMSPt of the two indirect methods) compared with that obtained by slow centrifugation (80% of the mean DMSPt). These results agree with those from Wolfe et al. (2002), showing mechanical activation of DMSP cleavage, and thus imply that slow centrifugation is preferable.

In the second experiment (Fig. 4), the centrifugation step (slow) led to significantly higher DMSPp values (mean = 25.4 ± 3.36 nmol mL⁻¹ for all three methods) than the filtration process using a hand vacuum pump (20.7 ± 2.34 nmol mL⁻¹) (*p* < 0.001, K-S test). The centrifugation produced a 16% higher DMSPp concentration (87% of DMSPt obtained by GC) than the filtration process (71% of DMSPt). This result potentially means, on the one hand, that the stress of gentle centrifugation is lower than that of filtration, leading to a smaller loss of DMSP. On the other hand, a higher DMSP value may have resulted from higher DMSP input due to aggregates of organic debris. The remaining bacteria do not influence DMSP measurement in exponentially growing cultures of *A. minutum* since cultures treated with antibiotics were previously shown to have similar DMSP content to untreated cultures (Geffroy 2021). It is not easy to determine which of these two techniques provides the most accurate result, however, the choice between the use of filtration or centrifugation should take into account the scientific objective (particulate, dissolved, or total DMSP) and the cell fragility or colonial or mucal aspects of the dinoflagellate species. In any case, based on our results (Figs. 3, 4), the use of slow (500 × g) centrifugation is recommended for harvesting dinoflagellate cells because high centrifugation pressure may cause considerable loss of DMSP, likely due to cell lysis.

## Sample storage

When samples cannot be analyzed on the day of culture sampling, it is necessary to store them. Storage conditions may also impact the final DMSP concentrations detected in the sample (Russell and Howard 1996; Borges and Champenois 2017); hence, this step also requires attention for method improvement. Storage of samples harvested by filtration and intended for LC-MS/MS analyses does not appear to be affected by whether MeOH was added before or after freezing. However, the addition of MeOH before freezing to cells harvested by centrifugation significantly increases the DMSP content (*p* < 0.05, K-S test; Fig. 4). This suggests that some DMSP could have been lost as the cell pellets were removed from storage and the MeOH added. Conversely, after filtration
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Comparison between fast (3600 × *g*) and slow (500 × *g*) centrifugation (C) on the DMSP measurements obtained by LC-MS/MS and with the DMSPt concentrations measured by GC-FPD and MIMS. Error bars represent standard deviations of the means (*n* = 3 sample replicates of a sole culture).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** DMSPt and DMSPp concentrations measured by three analytical methods (GC-FPD, MIMS, and LC-MS/MS). DMSPp measurements were obtained after either C: slow centrifugation or F: gentle filtration of the *A. minutum* sample and storage before LC-MS/MS analyses either by direct freezing (freez.) or by adding MeOH and then freezing. Error bars represent standard deviations of the mean (*n* = 5 replicate samples from a sole culture, except *n* = 4 for GC analyses after centrifugation).</figcaption></figure>

and frozen storage, cells were potentially protected by the folded filter and less prone to thaw before MeOH addition. Therefore, we recommend the use of MeOH before freezing to avoid DMSP degradation during sample thawing. Indeed, in the case where MeOH is added after frozen storage, thawing needs to be prevented by carefully placing samples in ice while rapidly adding MeOH in order to avoid any DMSP degradation by cell lysis and enzymatic cleavage.

Using the LC-MS/MS method, the analyses of *A. minutum* extracts (*n* = 20) in MeOH after 2 months of storage show no significant difference compared with samples analyzed within a short-term period (2 weeks) (*p* > 0.05, K–S test; Fig. 5). Long-term storage of up to 2 months has no effect on DMSP measurements by LC-MS/MS. Frozen storage (–80°C) makes it possible to store samples in a manner that prevents any biological activity or DMSP loss, provided that MeOH is used as described above. For MIMS and GC-FPD, the addition of HCl allows samples to be stored (del Valle et al. 2011). Moreover, since our samples were only measured once after a couple of months of storage, the coherence of data obtained among the methods (Fig. 4) suggests that this acidification method is appropriate for dinoflagellate samples.

### DMSPp concentrations in dinoflagellate samples obtained by three analytical methods

Comparing the DMSP data obtained by the three methods provides insights into their accuracy. In the first experiment with culture samples of the dinoflagellate *A. minutum*, DMSPt concentrations obtained by GC-FPD and MIMS were not significantly different (*p* > 0.05, K–S test; Fig. 3). These two indirect methods led to similar DMSPt concentrations even though the DMS measurement was made in the headspace for one and in the liquid sample for the other. In the second experiment, the DMSPt and DMSPp values were slightly higher when obtained by GC-FPD (29.2 ± 1.68 and 21.6 ± 2.77 nmol mL⁻¹, respectively) than by MIMS (25.0 ± 0.63 and 20.9 ± 1.55 nmol mL⁻¹, respectively); the difference only being significant for DMSPt values (*p* < 0.05, K–S test; Fig. 4). It is difficult to explain this discrepancy since the standard curves were correct and these two analytical methods gave similar results for DMSPt in the first experiment. For these indirect techniques, GC-FPD and MIMS, DMSPp concentrations represented 79.6% and 74.5% of the DMSPt concentrations, respectively. DMSPp data obtained by LC-MS/MS were significantly higher (mean = 24.9 ± 3.75 nmol mL⁻¹, *n* = 20, *p* < 0.01, K–W test) than those obtained by the indirect methods, with some values even being equivalent or higher than the DMSPt concentrations. More precisely, DMSPp values obtained by LC-MS/MS were significantly different from MIMS (*p* < 0.05, K–S test) but not from GC-FPD (*p* > 0.05, K–S test), and those from GC-FPD were not significantly different from MIMS (*p* > 0.05, K–S test). Compared with the DMSPt concentrations obtained by both indirect methods (mean = 27.1 nmol mL⁻¹), DMSPp measurements by LC-MS/MS represented 92.1% of DMSPt, thus being 18% and 12% higher than those obtained by MIMS and GC-FPD, respectively. The two latter methods also differed from LC-MS/MS by their storage procedures, which included acidification of the culture sample, while samples for LC-MS/MS were stored in MeOH. The authors del Valle et al. (2011) reported that the acidification method stabilized DMSP for months in culture samples from many phytoplankton species, with the exception of colonial haptophyte *Phaeocystis globosa*, for which samples lost 68% of their DMSP content, likely
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Comparison between fast (3600 × *g*) and slow (500 × *g*) centrifugation (C) on the DMSP measurements obtained by LC-MS/MS and with the DMSPt concentrations measured by GC-FPD and MIMS. Error bars represent standard deviations of the means (*n* = 3 sample replicates of a sole culture).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** DMSPt and DMSPp concentrations measured by three analytical methods (GC-FPD, MIMS, and LC-MS/MS). DMSPp measurements were obtained after either C: slow centrifugation or F: gentle filtration of the *A. minutum* sample and storage before LC-MS/MS analyses either by direct freezing (freez.) or by adding MeOH and then freezing. Error bars represent standard deviations of the mean (*n* = 5 replicate samples from a sole culture, except *n* = 4 for GC analyses after centrifugation).</figcaption></figure>

and frozen storage, cells were potentially protected by the folded filter and less prone to thaw before MeOH addition. Therefore, we recommend the use of MeOH before freezing to avoid DMSP degradation during sample thawing. Indeed, in the case where MeOH is added after frozen storage, thawing needs to be prevented by carefully placing samples in ice while rapidly adding MeOH in order to avoid any DMSP degradation by cell lysis and enzymatic cleavage.

Using the LC-MS/MS method, the analyses of *A. minutum* extracts (*n* = 20) in MeOH after 2 months of storage show no significant difference compared with samples analyzed within a short-term period (2 weeks) (*p* > 0.05, K–S test; Fig. 5). Long-term storage of up to 2 months has no effect on DMSP measurements by LC-MS/MS. Frozen storage (–80°C) makes it possible to store samples in a manner that prevents any biological activity or DMSP loss, provided that MeOH is used as described above. For MIMS and GC-FPD, the addition of HCl allows samples to be stored (del Valle et al. 2011). Moreover, since our samples were only measured once after a couple of months of storage, the coherence of data obtained among the methods (Fig. 4) suggests that this acidification method is appropriate for dinoflagellate samples.

### DMSPp concentrations in dinoflagellate samples obtained by three analytical methods

Comparing the DMSP data obtained by the three methods provides insights into their accuracy. In the first experiment with culture samples of the dinoflagellate *A. minutum*, DMSPt concentrations obtained by GC-FPD and MIMS were not significantly different (*p* > 0.05, K–S test; Fig. 3). These two indirect methods led to similar DMSPt concentrations even though the DMS measurement was made in the headspace for one and in the liquid sample for the other. In the second experiment, the DMSPt and DMSPp values were slightly higher when obtained by GC-FPD (29.2 ± 1.68 and 21.6 ± 2.77 nmol mL⁻¹, respectively) than by MIMS (25.0 ± 0.63 and 20.9 ± 1.55 nmol mL⁻¹, respectively); the difference only being significant for DMSPt values (*p* < 0.05, K–S test; Fig. 4). It is difficult to explain this discrepancy since the standard curves were correct and these two analytical methods gave similar results for DMSPt in the first experiment. For these indirect techniques, GC-FPD and MIMS, DMSPp concentrations represented 79.6% and 74.5% of the DMSPt concentrations, respectively. DMSPp data obtained by LC-MS/MS were significantly higher (mean = 24.9 ± 3.75 nmol mL⁻¹, *n* = 20, *p* < 0.01, K–W test) than those obtained by the indirect methods, with some values even being equivalent or higher than the DMSPt concentrations. More precisely, DMSPp values obtained by LC-MS/MS were significantly different from MIMS (*p* < 0.05, K–S test) but not from GC-FPD (*p* > 0.05, K–S test), and those from GC-FPD were not significantly different from MIMS (*p* > 0.05, K–S test). Compared with the DMSPt concentrations obtained by both indirect methods (mean = 27.1 nmol mL⁻¹), DMSPp measurements by LC-MS/MS represented 92.1% of DMSPt, thus being 18% and 12% higher than those obtained by MIMS and GC-FPD, respectively. The two latter methods also differed from LC-MS/MS by their storage procedures, which included acidification of the culture sample, while samples for LC-MS/MS were stored in MeOH. The authors del Valle et al. (2011) reported that the acidification method stabilized DMSP for months in culture samples from many phytoplankton species, with the exception of colonial haptophyte *Phaeocystis globosa*, for which samples lost 68% of their DMSP content, likely
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Effect of 2 months of storage on DMSPp methanol extracts analyzed by LC-MS/MS. Data in blue (< 2 weeks storage) are those presented in blue in Fig. 4 (obtained for *Alexandrium minutum* samples filtered (F) or centrifuged (C) then directly frozen or frozen following the addition of MeOH).</figcaption></figure>

due to DLA activity. However, this did not happen for solitary
cells of *P. globosa*, or for other phytoplankton tested, including
dinoflagellates and, even species with DLAs. While the species
*A. minutum* may possess DLA (Caruana and Malin 2014), no
lyase detection or measurement was done on the strain
RCC7037 examined here. Also, even if it is unlikely that acidifi-
cation could lead to DMSP loss in this strain, this cannot be
excluded. Moreover, if we consider the DMSPp averages (21.6,
20.2, and 24.9 nmol mL⁻¹) for all data obtained by the three
methods (GC-FPD, MIMS, and LC-MS/MS, respectively), the vari-
ability between them represented by the coefficient of variation
is only 11%. In comparison, Swan et al. (2014) reported a 25%
variability for a DMSP calibration between 10 laboratories that
used GC methods. Moreover, the variability between DMSPp
data in *A. minutum* culture was expected to be higher than for
DMSP standards as it also included the variability between cul-
ture samplings and the potential effect of the biological matrix
on LC-MS/MS measurements, though minimized by sample dilu-
tion (Panuwet et al. 2016). The 11% variability therefore remains
acceptable, although efforts should be continued to reduce vari-
ability between analytical methods, such as by reducing the
mechanical stress of culture handling for harvesting cells, evalu-
ating the effects of the biological matrix in LC-MS/MS measure-
ment for different phytoplankton groups or species with more
precision, and developing a method for measuring the dissolved
DMSP fraction by LC-MS/MS.

Discussion

Comparison of three commonly employed methods for
quantitative analysis of DMSP in dinoflagellate cultures led to
coherent DMSP values. The good coherence and precision of
the three methods rely on all the steps of culture sampling,

storage and analysis, although these differ among the
methods, and the care and attention paid to these steps may
contribute to explaining the low variability observed. For cell
harvesting, we recommend using the gentlest means, in agree-
ment with results from Wolfe et al. (2002) and Kiene and
Slezak (2006) to prevent from cell DMSP leakage. Appropriate
gentle techniques adapted to phytoplankton cultures include
preferentially slow centrifugation or the use of a weak-pressure
vacuum pump. Storage is also a delicate process that needs to
be done in such a way as to prevent from DMSP degradation.
For the LC-MS/MS method, the use of MeOH is recommended
before frozen storage.

Another source of discrepancy between the methods could
come from DMS precursors in the indirect DMSP methods.
The LC method makes it possible to analyze DMSP directly in
cell extracts, while GC-FPD and MIMS can be used to analyze
the DMS that results from the chemical cleavage of DMSP.
There also exist other DMS precursors than DMSP, which
might cause an overestimation of DMSP values when using
indirect methods. Nevertheless, DMSP seems to be the major
precursor in some dinoflagellates (Caruana 2010; Gebser and
Pohnert 2013; Gebser et al. 2020). *Lingulodinium polyedrum* is
an exception, however, as this dinoflagellate produces major
concentrations of gonyol and minor ones of DMSP, both of
which are DMS precursors (Gebser et al. 2020). Our higher
results with the direct method appear to indicate that indirect
methods do not overestimate DMSP in *A. minutum*, suggesting
that other DMSP precursors are minor or absent in this species.

MIMS is a reliable, precise, sensitive (lowest detectable stan-
dard with LC-MS/MS in the experimental conditions used
here) and affordable alternative method for DMSP and DMS
measurements, with a compact size suitable for an onboard
laboratory during a field campaign (Table 2). However, it is a
time-consuming method since each sample has to be run
manually and monitored by the operator to avoid aspiration
of organic debris into the capillary and record the measure-
ment under conditions of no external gas exchange. More-
over, based on the large range of detectable concentrations, to
achieve better accuracy, it is necessary to make several calibra-
tion curves for low and high concentrations. Further assays
with a longer inlet membrane (75 mm length, Barak-Gavish
et al. 2018) would increase molecule diffusion and could make
it possible to lower the lowest detectable standard. In contrast,
GC-FPD and LC-MS/MS can have automatic injection systems
that facilitate and save time for their applications. GC-FPD
seems to be the most robust and easiest method for DMSP
measurement, also allowing DMS measurements and the
lowest detection if associated with a purge and trap system.
However, although the LC-MS/MS method is the most expen-
sive in terms of the instrument, column and solvents required
for the analyses, it is direct, sensitive and allows the repeatabil-
ity of the analyses. Finally, a direct method is absolutely
needed for identifying without doubt the presence of DMSP in
newly screened organisms.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Effect of 2 months of storage on DMSPp methanol extracts analyzed by LC-MS/MS. Data in blue (< 2 weeks storage) are those presented in blue in Fig. 4 (obtained for *Alexandrium minutum* samples filtered (F) or centrifuged (C) then directly frozen or frozen following the addition of MeOH).</figcaption></figure>

due to DLA activity. However, this did not happen for solitary
cells of *P. globosa*, or for other phytoplankton tested, including
dinoflagellates and, even species with DLAs. While the species
*A. minutum* may possess DLA (Caruana and Malin 2014), no
lyase detection or measurement was done on the strain
RCC7037 examined here. Also, even if it is unlikely that acidifi-
cation could lead to DMSP loss in this strain, this cannot be
excluded. Moreover, if we consider the DMSPp averages (21.6,
20.2, and 24.9 nmol mL⁻¹) for all data obtained by the three
methods (GC-FPD, MIMS, and LC-MS/MS, respectively), the vari-
ability between them represented by the coefficient of variation
is only 11%. In comparison, Swan et al. (2014) reported a 25%
variability for a DMSP calibration between 10 laboratories that
used GC methods. Moreover, the variability between DMSPp
data in *A. minutum* culture was expected to be higher than for
DMSP standards as it also included the variability between cul-
ture samplings and the potential effect of the biological matrix
on LC-MS/MS measurements, though minimized by sample dilu-
tion (Panuwet et al. 2016). The 11% variability therefore remains
acceptable, although efforts should be continued to reduce vari-
ability between analytical methods, such as by reducing the
mechanical stress of culture handling for harvesting cells, evalu-
ating the effects of the biological matrix in LC-MS/MS measure-
ment for different phytoplankton groups or species with more
precision, and developing a method for measuring the dissolved
DMSP fraction by LC-MS/MS.

Discussion

Comparison of three commonly employed methods for
quantitative analysis of DMSP in dinoflagellate cultures led to
coherent DMSP values. The good coherence and precision of
the three methods rely on all the steps of culture sampling,

storage and analysis, although these differ among the
methods, and the care and attention paid to these steps may
contribute to explaining the low variability observed. For cell
harvesting, we recommend using the gentlest means, in agree-
ment with results from Wolfe et al. (2002) and Kiene and
Slezak (2006) to prevent from cell DMSP leakage. Appropriate
gentle techniques adapted to phytoplankton cultures include
preferentially slow centrifugation or the use of a weak-pressure
vacuum pump. Storage is also a delicate process that needs to
be done in such a way as to prevent from DMSP degradation.
For the LC-MS/MS method, the use of MeOH is recommended
before frozen storage.

Another source of discrepancy between the methods could
come from DMS precursors in the indirect DMSP methods.
The LC method makes it possible to analyze DMSP directly in
cell extracts, while GC-FPD and MIMS can be used to analyze
the DMS that results from the chemical cleavage of DMSP.
There also exist other DMS precursors than DMSP, which
might cause an overestimation of DMSP values when using
indirect methods. Nevertheless, DMSP seems to be the major
precursor in some dinoflagellates (Caruana 2010; Gebser and
Pohnert 2013; Gebser et al. 2020). *Lingulodinium polyedrum* is
an exception, however, as this dinoflagellate produces major
concentrations of gonyol and minor ones of DMSP, both of
which are DMS precursors (Gebser et al. 2020). Our higher
results with the direct method appear to indicate that indirect
methods do not overestimate DMSP in *A. minutum*, suggesting
that other DMSP precursors are minor or absent in this species.

MIMS is a reliable, precise, sensitive (lowest detectable stan-
dard with LC-MS/MS in the experimental conditions used
here) and affordable alternative method for DMSP and DMS
measurements, with a compact size suitable for an onboard
laboratory during a field campaign (Table 2). However, it is a
time-consuming method since each sample has to be run
manually and monitored by the operator to avoid aspiration
of organic debris into the capillary and record the measure-
ment under conditions of no external gas exchange. More-
over, based on the large range of detectable concentrations, to
achieve better accuracy, it is necessary to make several calibra-
tion curves for low and high concentrations. Further assays
with a longer inlet membrane (75 mm length, Barak-Gavish
et al. 2018) would increase molecule diffusion and could make
it possible to lower the lowest detectable standard. In contrast,
GC-FPD and LC-MS/MS can have automatic injection systems
that facilitate and save time for their applications. GC-FPD
seems to be the most robust and easiest method for DMSP
measurement, also allowing DMS measurements and the
lowest detection if associated with a purge and trap system.
However, although the LC-MS/MS method is the most expen-
sive in terms of the instrument, column and solvents required
for the analyses, it is direct, sensitive and allows the repeatabil-
ity of the analyses. Finally, a direct method is absolutely
needed for identifying without doubt the presence of DMSP in
newly screened organisms.
Furthermore, the three methods are complementary since direct methods (LC) are necessary for verifying the exact DMS precursor/s (whether mostly DMSP or other molecules), while indirect methods can be used to measure DMSPt, DMSPp, or DMS and rule out the potential effect of the biological matrix on DMSP measurement that might occur with LC-MS/MS equipment.

The comparison of methods aims to validate methods, potentially selecting the most accurate one, and to supply reliable data, especially in the context of the increased number of methods that have emerged in recent years (Table 1). Few inter-laboratory exercises or method comparisons have been previously conducted (Swan et al. 2014, 2017). In the field of DMSP research, reliable and precise DMSP concentrations from culture and field samples are needed, for instance, to serve as absolute values in S budgets for marine and atmospheric models or metabolic fluxes at cellular and population scales (Lana et al. 2011; Fernandez et al. 2022; Ma et al. 2022). In addition, comparison of DMSP data between studies over time and geographical locations would be made possible based on reliable and consistent data.

## Comments and recommendations

The assessment of the three analytical methods clearly demonstrates that based on their linearity and precision, the

three methods are valid and produce comparable values. Hence, the comparison of DMSP data from diverse studies is possible as the use of different analytical methods results in little variation in DMSP values. However, attention must be paid to sample harvesting and storage to preserve cellular DMSP content to obtain an accurate and representative measurement. For phytoplankton cultures, as it is not possible to harvest cells by gravity filtration, slow centrifugation is recommended. Direct methods such as LC-MS/MS are absolutely necessary to identify the DMSP compound in organisms but are unable to measure the gas DMS. Choice of method may depend on the needs and budget of the project (Table 2), on whether it is to be used in the laboratory or field, or on what storage conditions are possible. For example, the onboard preparation of environmental samples may be facilitated by the use of acid rather than MeOH. The choice may also depend on the DMSP range values expected, since the low DMS and DMSP concentrations in environmental samples or in cultures of low DMSP-producing species may direct the choice toward a compact and sensitive method such as MIMS or a method coupling GC-FPD with purge and trap system for sample concentration.

With oceanic DMS fluxes accounting for 70% of the sulfur natural emissions to the atmosphere (Hulswar et al. 2022), DMSP cellular levels quantification and knowledge of their variability under abiotic and biotic stresses in different

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Comparison of the detection ranges, advantages and disadvantages of the three analytical methods GC-FPD, MIMS, and LC-MS/MS.</caption><thead><tr><th>Analytical methods</th><th>Detection ranges</th><th>Advantages</th><th>Disadvantages</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GC-FPD</td><td>2.1–230 nmol S or 0.7–80 µmol L<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Coupling with automatic injection system<br>Affordable<br>Coupling with purge and trap system for trace DMS measurements<br>Possibility to increase injected headspace volume</td><td>Indirect method</td></tr><tr><td>MIMS</td><td>0.015–480 nmol S or 5 nmol L<sup>-1</sup>–160 µmol L<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Low detection limit<br>DMS measurements possible<br>Affordable<br>Compact size suitable for onboard laboratory</td><td>Indirect method<br>Time consuming due to manual sample injection and need of operator monitoring<br>Sample fully consumed by the analysis<br>Several calibration curves needed for low (0.015–3 nmol) and high concentrations</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS/MS</td><td>0.015–3 nmol S or 5 nmol L<sup>-1</sup>–1 µmol L<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Direct method allowing DMSP identification, highest DMSP yield<br>Coupling with automatic injection system<br>Low detection limit<br>Use only a fraction of the sample which can be stored and analyzed several times</td><td>Expensive<br>No possibility of DMS measurement<br>Use of organic solvent (MeOH)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Furthermore, the three methods are complementary since direct methods (LC) are necessary for verifying the exact DMS precursor/s (whether mostly DMSP or other molecules), while indirect methods can be used to measure DMSPt, DMSPp, or DMS and rule out the potential effect of the biological matrix on DMSP measurement that might occur with LC-MS/MS equipment.

The comparison of methods aims to validate methods, potentially selecting the most accurate one, and to supply reliable data, especially in the context of the increased number of methods that have emerged in recent years (Table 1). Few inter-laboratory exercises or method comparisons have been previously conducted (Swan et al. 2014, 2017). In the field of DMSP research, reliable and precise DMSP concentrations from culture and field samples are needed, for instance, to serve as absolute values in S budgets for marine and atmospheric models or metabolic fluxes at cellular and population scales (Lana et al. 2011; Fernandez et al. 2022; Ma et al. 2022). In addition, comparison of DMSP data between studies over time and geographical locations would be made possible based on reliable and consistent data.

## Comments and recommendations

The assessment of the three analytical methods clearly demonstrates that based on their linearity and precision, the

three methods are valid and produce comparable values. Hence, the comparison of DMSP data from diverse studies is possible as the use of different analytical methods results in little variation in DMSP values. However, attention must be paid to sample harvesting and storage to preserve cellular DMSP content to obtain an accurate and representative measurement. For phytoplankton cultures, as it is not possible to harvest cells by gravity filtration, slow centrifugation is recommended. Direct methods such as LC-MS/MS are absolutely necessary to identify the DMSP compound in organisms but are unable to measure the gas DMS. Choice of method may depend on the needs and budget of the project (Table 2), on whether it is to be used in the laboratory or field, or on what storage conditions are possible. For example, the onboard preparation of environmental samples may be facilitated by the use of acid rather than MeOH. The choice may also depend on the DMSP range values expected, since the low DMS and DMSP concentrations in environmental samples or in cultures of low DMSP-producing species may direct the choice toward a compact and sensitive method such as MIMS or a method coupling GC-FPD with purge and trap system for sample concentration.

With oceanic DMS fluxes accounting for 70% of the sulfur natural emissions to the atmosphere (Hulswar et al. 2022), DMSP cellular levels quantification and knowledge of their variability under abiotic and biotic stresses in different

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Comparison of the detection ranges, advantages and disadvantages of the three analytical methods GC-FPD, MIMS, and LC-MS/MS.</caption><thead><tr><td>Analytical methods</td><td>Detection ranges</td><td>Advantages</td><td>Disadvantages</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GC-FPD</td><td>2.1–230 nmol S or 0.7–80 µmol L<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Coupling with automatic injection system<br>Affordable<br>Coupling with purge and trap system for trace DMS measurements<br>Possibility to increase injected headspace volume</td><td>Indirect method</td></tr><tr><td>MIMS</td><td>0.015–480 nmol S or 5 nmol L<sup>-1</sup>–160 µmol L<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Low detection limit<br>DMS measurements possible<br>Affordable<br>Compact size suitable for onboard laboratory</td><td>Indirect method<br>Time consuming due to manual sample injection and need of operator monitoring<br>Sample fully consumed by the analysis<br>Several calibration curves needed for low (0.015–3 nmol) and high concentrations</td></tr><tr><td>LC-MS/MS</td><td>0.015–3 nmol S or 5 nmol L<sup>-1</sup>–1 µmol L<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Direct method allowing DMSP identification, highest DMSP yield<br>Coupling with automatic injection system<br>Low detection limit<br>Use only a fraction of the sample which can be stored and analyzed several times</td><td>Expensive<br>No possibility of DMS measurement<br>Use of organic solvent (MeOH)</td></tr></tbody></table>
taxonomic groups are crucially needed. Further research including direct and indirect methods should examine results obtained with other dinoflagellate species, phytoplankton, macroalgae and bacterial species to determine the exact DMS source and assess the potential effect of the biological matrix on LC-MS/MS measurement.

## References

Barak-Gavish, N., and others. 2018. Bacterial virulence against an oceanic bloom-forming phytoplankter is mediated by algal DMSP. Sci. Adv. **4**: eaau5716. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau5716

Belviso, S., P. Buatmenard, J. P. Putaud, B. C. Nguyen, H. Claustre, and J. Neveux. 1993. Size distribution of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) in areas of the tropical northeastern Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Chem. **44**: 55-71. doi:10.1016/0304-4203(93)90006-A

Bertalet, E., G. Llaveria, and R. Simo. 2011. Modulation of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) concentration in an *Alexandrium minutum* (Dinophyceae) culture by small-scale turbulence: A link to toxin production? Harmful Algae **11**: 88-95. doi:10.1016/j.hal.2011.08.003

Borges, A. V., and W. Champenois. 2017. Preservation protocol for dimethylsulfoniopropionate and dimethylsulfoxide analysis in plant material of the Mediterranean seagrass *Posidonia oceanica*, and re-evaluation of dimethylsulfoniopropionate leaf content. Aquat. Bot. **143**: 8-10. doi:10.1016/j.aquabot.2017.08.004

Bucciarelli, E., C. Ridame, W. G. Sunda, C. Dimier-Hugueney, M. Cheize, and S. Belviso. 2013. Increased intracellular concentrations of DMSP and DMSO in iron-limited oceanic phytoplankton *Thalassiosira oceanica* and *Trichodesmium erythraeum*. Limnol. Oceanogr. **58**: 1667-1679. doi:10.4319/lo.2013.58.5.1667

Bucciarelli, E., V. Stiger-Pouvreau, and S. Connan. 2021. A new protocol using acidification for preserving DMSP in macroalgae and comparison with existing protocols. J. Phycol. **57**: 689-693. doi:10.1111/jpy.13113

Careri, M., M. Musci, F. Bianchi, C. Mucchino, R. Azzoni, and P. Viaroli. 2001. On-line purge-and-trap-gas chromatography with flame ionization detection as an alternative analytical method for dimethyl sulphide trace release from marine algae. Ann. Chim. **91**: 553-561.

Caruana, A. 2010. DMS and DMSP production by marine dinoflagellates. PhD Thesis. Univ. of East Anglia (UK). https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/25594

Caruana, A. M. N., M. Steinke, S. M. Turner, and G. Malin. 2012. Concentrations of dimethylsulphoniopropionate and activities of dimethylsulphide-producing enzymes in batch cultures of nine dinoflagellate species. Biogeochemistry **110**: 87-107. doi:10.1007/s10533-012-9705-4

Caruana, A. M. N., and G. Malin. 2014. The variability in DMSP content and DMSP lyase activity in marine dinoflagellates. Prog. Oceanogr. **120**: 410-424. doi:10.1016/j-pocean.2013.10.014

Caruana, A. M. N., M. Le Gac, F. Hervé, G.-A. Rovillon, S. Geffroy, F. Malo, E. Abadie, and Z. Amzil. 2020. *Alexandrium pacificum* and *Alexandrium minutum*: Harmful or environmentally friendly? Mar. Environ. Res. **160**: 105014. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.105014

Charlson, R. J., J. E. Lovelock, M. O. Andreae, and S. G. Warren. 1987. Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulfur, cloud albedo and climate. Nature **326**: 655-661. doi:10.1038/326655a0

Curson, A. R. J., and others. 2017. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate biosynthesis in marine bacteria and identification of the key gene in this process. Nat. Microbiol. **2**: 17009. doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.9

Curson, A. R. J., and others. 2018. DSYB catalyses the key step of dimethylsulfoniopropionate biosynthesis in many phytoplankton. Nat. Microbiol. **3**: 430-439. doi:10.1038/s41564-018-0119-5

del Valle, D. A., D. Slezak, C. M. Smith, A. N. Rellinger, D. J. Kieber, and R. P. Kiene. 2011. Effect of acidification on preservation of DMSP in seawater and phytoplankton cultures: Evidence for rapid loss and cleavage of DMSP in samples containing *Phaeocystis* sp. Mar. Chem. **124**: 57-67. doi:10.1016/j.marchem.2010.12.002

Fernandez, E., J. R. Seymour, and K. Petrou. 2022. Phytoplankton sources and sinks of dimethylsulphoniopropionate (DMSP) in temperate coastal waters of Australia. Microorganisms **10**: 1539. doi:10.3390/microorganisms10081539

Ferrer, R. P., and R. K. Zimmer. 2013. Molecules of keystone significance: Crucial agents in ecology and resource management. Bioscience **63**: 428-438. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.6.5

Gebser, B., and G. Pohnert. 2013. Synchronized regulation of different zwitterionic metabolites in the osmoadaption of phytoplankton. Mar. Drugs **11**: 2168-2182. doi:10.3390/md11062168

Gebser, B., K. Thume, M. Steinke, and G. Pohnert. 2020. Phytoplankton-derived zwitterionic gonyol and dimethylsulfonioacetate interfere with microbial dimethylsulfoniopropionate sulfur cycling. MicrobiologyOpen **9**: e1014. doi:10.1002/mbo3.1014

Geffroy, S. 2021. Etude des processus physiologiques et moléculaires impliqués dans la production de phycotoxines paraly-santes (PST) et diméthylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) chez *Alexandrium minutum* et *A. pacificum* / Physiological and molecular processes involved in the production of paralytic phycotoxins (PST) and dimethyl-sulfoniopropionate (DMSP) in *Alexandrium minutum* and *A. pacificum*. PhD thesis. University of Nantes (France).

Howard, A. G., and D. W. Russell. 1996. An alternative approach to the measurement of β-dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) and other precursors of dimethylsulfide, p. 65-73. In R. P. Kiene, P. T. Visscher, M. D. Keller, and G. O. Kirst [eds.], dinoflagellates. Prog. Oceanogr. **120**: 410-424. doi:10.1016/j-pocean.2013.10.014
taxonomic groups are crucially needed. Further research including direct and indirect methods should examine results obtained with other dinoflagellate species, phytoplankton, macroalgae and bacterial species to determine the exact DMS source and assess the potential effect of the biological matrix on LC-MS/MS measurement.

## References

Barak-Gavish, N., and others. 2018. Bacterial virulence against an oceanic bloom-forming phytoplankter is mediated by algal DMSP. Sci. Adv. **4**: eaau5716. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau5716

Belviso, S., P. Buatmenard, J. P. Putaud, B. C. Nguyen, H. Claustre, and J. Neveux. 1993. Size distribution of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) in areas of the tropical northeastern Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Chem. **44**: 55-71. doi:10.1016/0304-4203(93)90006-A

Bertalet, E., G. Llaveria, and R. Simo. 2011. Modulation of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) concentration in an *Alexandrium minutum* (Dinophyceae) culture by small-scale turbulence: A link to toxin production? Harmful Algae **11**: 88-95. doi:10.1016/j.hal.2011.08.003

Borges, A. V., and W. Champenois. 2017. Preservation protocol for dimethylsulfoniopropionate and dimethylsulfoxide analysis in plant material of the Mediterranean seagrass *Posidonia oceanica*, and re-evaluation of dimethylsulfoniopropionate leaf content. Aquat. Bot. **143**: 8-10. doi:10.1016/j.aquabot.2017.08.004

Bucciarelli, E., C. Ridame, W. G. Sunda, C. Dimier-Hugueney, M. Cheize, and S. Belviso. 2013. Increased intracellular concentrations of DMSP and DMSO in iron-limited oceanic phytoplankton *Thalassiosira oceanica* and *Trichodesmium erythraeum*. Limnol. Oceanogr. **58**: 1667-1679. doi:10.4319/lo.2013.58.5.1667

Bucciarelli, E., V. Stiger-Pouvreau, and S. Connan. 2021. A new protocol using acidification for preserving DMSP in macroalgae and comparison with existing protocols. J. Phycol. **57**: 689-693. doi:10.1111/jpy.13113

Careri, M., M. Musci, F. Bianchi, C. Mucchino, R. Azzoni, and P. Viaroli. 2001. On-line purge-and-trap-gas chromatography with flame ionization detection as an alternative analytical method for dimethyl sulphide trace release from marine algae. Ann. Chim. **91**: 553-561.

Caruana, A. 2010. DMS and DMSP production by marine dinoflagellates. PhD Thesis. Univ. of East Anglia (UK). https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/25594

Caruana, A. M. N., M. Steinke, S. M. Turner, and G. Malin. 2012. Concentrations of dimethylsulphoniopropionate and activities of dimethylsulphide-producing enzymes in batch cultures of nine dinoflagellate species. Biogeochemistry **110**: 87-107. doi:10.1007/s10533-012-9705-4

Caruana, A. M. N., and G. Malin. 2014. The variability in DMSP content and DMSP lyase activity in marine dinoflagellates. Prog. Oceanogr. **120**: 410-424. doi:10.1016/j-pocean.2013.10.014

Caruana, A. M. N., M. Le Gac, F. Hervé, G.-A. Rovillon, S. Geffroy, F. Malo, E. Abadie, and Z. Amzil. 2020. *Alexandrium pacificum* and *Alexandrium minutum*: Harmful or environmentally friendly? Mar. Environ. Res. **160**: 105014. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.105014

Charlson, R. J., J. E. Lovelock, M. O. Andreae, and S. G. Warren. 1987. Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulfur, cloud albedo and climate. Nature **326**: 655-661. doi:10.1038/326655a0

Curson, A. R. J., and others. 2017. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate biosynthesis in marine bacteria and identification of the key gene in this process. Nat. Microbiol. **2**: 17009. doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.9

Curson, A. R. J., and others. 2018. DSYB catalyses the key step of dimethylsulfoniopropionate biosynthesis in many phytoplankton. Nat. Microbiol. **3**: 430-439. doi:10.1038/s41564-018-0119-5

del Valle, D. A., D. Slezak, C. M. Smith, A. N. Rellinger, D. J. Kieber, and R. P. Kiene. 2011. Effect of acidification on preservation of DMSP in seawater and phytoplankton cultures: Evidence for rapid loss and cleavage of DMSP in samples containing *Phaeocystis* sp. Mar. Chem. **124**: 57-67. doi:10.1016/j.marchem.2010.12.002

Fernandez, E., J. R. Seymour, and K. Petrou. 2022. Phytoplankton sources and sinks of dimethylsulphoniopropionate (DMSP) in temperate coastal waters of Australia. Microorganisms **10**: 1539. doi:10.3390/microorganisms10081539

Ferrer, R. P., and R. K. Zimmer. 2013. Molecules of keystone significance: Crucial agents in ecology and resource management. Bioscience **63**: 428-438. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.6.5

Gebser, B., and G. Pohnert. 2013. Synchronized regulation of different zwitterionic metabolites in the osmoadaption of phytoplankton. Mar. Drugs **11**: 2168-2182. doi:10.3390/md11062168

Gebser, B., K. Thume, M. Steinke, and G. Pohnert. 2020. Phytoplankton-derived zwitterionic gonyol and dimethylsulfonioacetate interfere with microbial dimethylsulfoniopropionate sulfur cycling. MicrobiologyOpen **9**: e1014. doi:10.1002/mbo3.1014

Geffroy, S. 2021. Etude des processus physiologiques et moléculaires impliqués dans la production de phycotoxines paraly-santes (PST) et diméthylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) chez *Alexandrium minutum* et *A. pacificum* / Physiological and molecular processes involved in the production of paralytic phycotoxins (PST) and dimethyl-sulfoniopropionate (DMSP) in *Alexandrium minutum* and *A. pacificum*. PhD thesis. University of Nantes (France).

Howard, A. G., and D. W. Russell. 1996. An alternative approach to the measurement of β-dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) and other precursors of dimethylsulfide, p. 65-73. In R. P. Kiene, P. T. Visscher, M. D. Keller, and G. O. Kirst [eds.], dinoflagellates. Prog. Oceanogr. **120**: 410-424. doi:10.1016/j-pocean.2013.10.014
Biological and environmental chemistry of DMSP and related sulfonium compounds. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0377-0_6

Hulswar, S., and others. 2022. Third revision of the global surface seawater dimethyl sulfide climatology (DMS-Rev3). Earth Syst. Sci. Data **14**: 2963–2987. doi:10.5194/essd-14-2963-2022

Kana, T. M., J. C. Cornwell, and L. J. Zhong. 2006. Determination of denitrification in the Chesapeake Bay from measurements of N₂ accumulation in bottom water. Estuaries Coasts **29**: 222–231. doi:10.1007/BF02781991

Keller, M. D., W. K. Bellows, and R. R. L. Guillard. 1989. Dimethyl sulfide production in marine phytoplankton. ACS Symp. Ser. **393**: 167–182. doi:10.1016/0304-4203(88)90044-8

Kiene, R. P., and D. Slezak. 2006. Low dissolved DMSP concentrations in seawater revealed by small-volume gravity filtration and dialysis sampling. Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods **4**: 80–95. doi:10.4319/lom.2006.4.80

Lana, A., and others. 2011. An updated climatology of surface dimethylsulfide concentrations and emission fluxes in the global ocean. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycle **25**: doi:10.1029/2010GB003850

Lenky, C. C., C. J. McEntyre, and M. Lever. 2012. Measurement of marine osmolytes in mammalian serum by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Anal. Biochem. **420**: 7–12. doi:10.1016/j.ab.2011.09.013

Li, C., R. W. Hill, and A. D. Jones. 2010. Determination of betaine metabolites and dimethylsulfoniopropionate in coral tissues using liquid chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry and stable isotope-labeled internal standards. J. Chromatogr. B **878**: 1809–1816. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2010.05.014

Li, C. Y., and others. 2021. A novel ATP dependent dimethylsulfoniopropionate lyase in bacteria that releases dimethyl sulfide and acryloyl-CoA. *Life* **10**: e64045. doi: 10.7554/eLife.64045

Ma, Q. Y., H. H. Zhang, F. Xu, and G. P. Yang. 2022. Transformation processes of biogenic dimethylated sulfur compounds in the northwestern Pacific continental sea. Limnol. Oceanogr. **67**: 903–917. doi:10.1002/lno.12044

McCulloch, R. D., A. Herr, J. Dacey, and P. D. Tortell. 2020. Application of purge and trap-atmospheric pressure chemical ionization-tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of dimethyl sulfide in seawater. Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods **18**: 547–559. doi:10.1002/lom3.10381

Nakamura, H., T. Jin, M. Funahashi, K. Fujimaki, O. Sampei, A. Murai, T. Roenneberg, and J. W. Hastings. 1997. Biogenesis of sulfonium compounds in a dinoflagellate; methionine cascade. Tetrahedron **53**: 9067–9074. doi:10.1016/S0040-4020(97)00599-1

Nemcek, N., D. Ianson, and P. D. Tortell. 2008. A high-resolution survey of DMS, CO₂, and O₂/Ar distributions in

productive coastal waters. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycle **22**: doi:10.1029/2006GB002879

Niki, T., T. Fujinaga, M. F. Watanabe, and J. Kinoshita. 2004. Simple determination of dimethylsulfide (DMS) and dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) using solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Oceanogr. **60**: 913–917. doi:10.1007/s10872-005-5783-4

Panuwet, P., and others. 2016. Biological matrix effects in quantitative tandem mass spectrometry-based analytical methods: Advancing biomonitoring. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. **46**: 93–105. doi:10.1080/10408347.2014.980775

Peng, L. Y., Y. Guo, T. Gu, H. Li, S. Jian, D. Jia, and J. Sun. 2020. Benzene-assisted photoionization positive ion mobility spectrometry coupled with a time-resolved introduction for field detecting dimethyl sulfide in seawater. Anal. Methods **12**: 5168–5176. doi:10.1039/D0AY01242D

Peng, M., and others. 2019. Structure-function analysis indicates that an active-site water molecule participates in dimethylsulfoniopropionate cleavage by DddK. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. **85**: e03127-18. doi:10.1128/AEM.03127-18

Russell, D. W., and A. G. Howard. 1996. The determination of DMSP in marine algae and salt marsh plants, p. 155–163. *In* R. P. Kiene, P. T. Visscher, M. D. Keller, and G. O. Kirst [eds.], Biological and environmental chemistry of DMSP and related sulfonium compounds. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0377-0_14

Saltzman, E. S., W. J. De Bruyn, M. J. Lawler, C. A. Marandino, and C. A. McCormick. 2009. A chemical ionization mass spectrometer for continuous underway shipboard analysis of dimethylsulfide in near-surface seawater. Ocean Sci. **5**: 537–546. doi:10.5194/os-5-537-2009

Shemi, A., S. Ben-Dor, R. Rotkopf, O. Dym, and A. Vardi. 2023. Phylogeny and biogeography of the algal DMS-releasing enzyme in the global ocean. ISME Commun. **3**: 72. doi:10.1038/s43705-023-00280-2

Smith, G. C., T. Clark, L. Knutsen, and E. Barrett. 2018. Methodology for analyzing dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl sulfoniopropionate in seawater using deuterated internal standards. Anal. Chem. **71**: 5563–5568. doi:10.1021/ac990211q

Spielmeyer, A., and G. Pohnert. 2010. Direct quantification of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) with hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. B **878**: 3238–3242. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2010.09.031

Stefels, J., J. W. H. Dacey, and J. T. M. Elzenga. 2009. In vivo DMSP-biosynthesis measurements using stable-isotope incorporation and proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS). Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods **7**: 595–611. doi:10.4319/lom.2009.7.595

Steinke, M., G. Malin, S. M. Turner, and P. S. Liss. 2000. Determinations of dimethylsulphonopiopropionate (DMSP) lyase activity using headspace analysis of dimethylsulphide (DMS). J. Sea Res. **43**: 233–244. doi:10.1016/S1385-1101(00)00024-1
Biological and environmental chemistry of DMSP and related sulfonium compounds. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0377-0_6

Hulswar, S., and others. 2022. Third revision of the global surface seawater dimethyl sulfide climatology (DMS-Rev3). Earth Syst. Sci. Data **14**: 2963–2987. doi:10.5194/essd-14-2963-2022

Kana, T. M., J. C. Cornwell, and L. J. Zhong. 2006. Determination of denitrification in the Chesapeake Bay from measurements of N₂ accumulation in bottom water. Estuaries Coasts **29**: 222–231. doi:10.1007/BF02781991

Keller, M. D., W. K. Bellows, and R. R. L. Guillard. 1989. Dimethyl sulfide production in marine phytoplankton. ACS Symp. Ser. **393**: 167–182. doi:10.1016/0304-4203(88)90044-8

Kiene, R. P., and D. Slezak. 2006. Low dissolved DMSP concentrations in seawater revealed by small-volume gravity filtration and dialysis sampling. Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods **4**: 80–95. doi:10.4319/lom.2006.4.80

Lana, A., and others. 2011. An updated climatology of surface dimethylsulfide concentrations and emission fluxes in the global ocean. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycle **25**: doi:10.1029/2010GB003850

Lenky, C. C., C. J. McEntyre, and M. Lever. 2012. Measurement of marine osmolytes in mammalian serum by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Anal. Biochem. **420**: 7–12. doi:10.1016/j.ab.2011.09.013

Li, C., R. W. Hill, and A. D. Jones. 2010. Determination of betaine metabolites and dimethylsulfoniopropionate in coral tissues using liquid chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry and stable isotope-labeled internal standards. J. Chromatogr. B **878**: 1809–1816. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2010.05.014

Li, C. Y., and others. 2021. A novel ATP dependent dimethylsulfoniopropionate lyase in bacteria that releases dimethyl sulfide and acryloyl-CoA. *Life* **10**: e64045. doi: 10.7554/eLife.64045

Ma, Q. Y., H. H. Zhang, F. Xu, and G. P. Yang. 2022. Transformation processes of biogenic dimethylated sulfur compounds in the northwestern Pacific continental sea. Limnol. Oceanogr. **67**: 903–917. doi:10.1002/lno.12044

McCulloch, R. D., A. Herr, J. Dacey, and P. D. Tortell. 2020. Application of purge and trap-atmospheric pressure chemical ionization-tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of dimethyl sulfide in seawater. Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods **18**: 547–559. doi:10.1002/lom3.10381

Nakamura, H., T. Jin, M. Funahashi, K. Fujimaki, O. Sampei, A. Murai, T. Roenneberg, and J. W. Hastings. 1997. Biogenesis of sulfonium compounds in a dinoflagellate; methionine cascade. Tetrahedron **53**: 9067–9074. doi:10.1016/S0040-4020(97)00599-1

Nemcek, N., D. Ianson, and P. D. Tortell. 2008. A high-resolution survey of DMS, CO₂, and O₂/Ar distributions in

productive coastal waters. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycle **22**: doi:10.1029/2006GB002879

Niki, T., T. Fujinaga, M. F. Watanabe, and J. Kinoshita. 2004. Simple determination of dimethylsulfide (DMS) and dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) using solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Oceanogr. **60**: 913–917. doi:10.1007/s10872-005-5783-4

Panuwet, P., and others. 2016. Biological matrix effects in quantitative tandem mass spectrometry-based analytical methods: Advancing biomonitoring. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. **46**: 93–105. doi:10.1080/10408347.2014.980775

Peng, L. Y., Y. Guo, T. Gu, H. Li, S. Jian, D. Jia, and J. Sun. 2020. Benzene-assisted photoionization positive ion mobility spectrometry coupled with a time-resolved introduction for field detecting dimethyl sulfide in seawater. Anal. Methods **12**: 5168–5176. doi:10.1039/D0AY01242D

Peng, M., and others. 2019. Structure-function analysis indicates that an active-site water molecule participates in dimethylsulfoniopropionate cleavage by DddK. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. **85**: e03127-18. doi:10.1128/AEM.03127-18

Russell, D. W., and A. G. Howard. 1996. The determination of DMSP in marine algae and salt marsh plants, p. 155–163. *In* R. P. Kiene, P. T. Visscher, M. D. Keller, and G. O. Kirst [eds.], Biological and environmental chemistry of DMSP and related sulfonium compounds. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0377-0_14

Saltzman, E. S., W. J. De Bruyn, M. J. Lawler, C. A. Marandino, and C. A. McCormick. 2009. A chemical ionization mass spectrometer for continuous underway shipboard analysis of dimethylsulfide in near-surface seawater. Ocean Sci. **5**: 537–546. doi:10.5194/os-5-537-2009

Shemi, A., S. Ben-Dor, R. Rotkopf, O. Dym, and A. Vardi. 2023. Phylogeny and biogeography of the algal DMS-releasing enzyme in the global ocean. ISME Commun. **3**: 72. doi:10.1038/s43705-023-00280-2

Smith, G. C., T. Clark, L. Knutsen, and E. Barrett. 2018. Methodology for analyzing dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl sulfoniopropionate in seawater using deuterated internal standards. Anal. Chem. **71**: 5563–5568. doi:10.1021/ac990211q

Spielmeyer, A., and G. Pohnert. 2010. Direct quantification of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) with hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. B **878**: 3238–3242. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2010.09.031

Stefels, J., J. W. H. Dacey, and J. T. M. Elzenga. 2009. In vivo DMSP-biosynthesis measurements using stable-isotope incorporation and proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS). Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods **7**: 595–611. doi:10.4319/lom.2009.7.595

Steinke, M., G. Malin, S. M. Turner, and P. S. Liss. 2000. Determinations of dimethylsulphonopiopropionate (DMSP) lyase activity using headspace analysis of dimethylsulphide (DMS). J. Sea Res. **43**: 233–244. doi:10.1016/S1385-1101(00)00024-1
Swan, H. B., P. Armishaw, R. Iavetz, M. Alamgir, S. R. Davies, T. G. Bell, and G. B. Jones. 2014. An interlaboratory comparison for the quantification of aqueous dimethylsulfide. Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods **12**: 784–794. doi:10.4319/lom.2014.12.784

Swan, H. B., E. S. M. Deschaseaux, G. B. Jones, and B. D. Eyre. 2017. Quantification of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) in *Acropora* spp. of reef-building coral using mass spectrometry with deuterated internal standard. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. **409**: 1929–1942. doi:10.1007/s00216-016-0141-5

Tapiolas, D. M., J. B. Raina, A. Lutz, B. L. Willis, and C. A. Motti. 2013. Direct measurement of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) in reef-building corals using quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance (qNMR) spectroscopy. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. **443**: 85–89. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2013.02.037

Tortell, P. D. 2005. Dissolved gas measurements in oceanic waters made by membrane inlet mass spectrometry. Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods **3**: 24–37. doi:10.4319/lom.2005.3.24

White, R. H. 1982. Analysis of dimethyl sulfonium compounds in marine algae. J. Mar. Res. **40**: 529–536.

Wiesemeier, T., and G. Pohnert. 2007. Direct quantification of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) in marine micro- and macroalgae using HPLC or UPLC/MS. J. Chromatogr. B **850**: 493–498. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2006.12.023

Wolfe, G. V., S. L. Strom, J. L. Holmes, T. Radzio, and M. B. Olson. 2002. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate cleavage by

marine phytoplankton in response to mechanical, chemical, or dark stress. J. Phycol. **38**: 948–960. doi:10.1046/j.1529-8817.2002.t01-1-01100.x

Yost, D., and C. Mitchelmore. 2012. Substrate kinetics of DMSP-lyases in various cultured *Symbiodinium* strains. Bull. Mar. Sci. **88**: 267–282. doi:10.5343/bms.2011.1046

Zhang, J. H., N. Nishimura, M. Abo, A. Okubo, and S. Yamazaki. 2001. Determination of 3-dimethylsulfoniopropionate in marine algae by low-pH capillary electrophoresis. Bunseki Kagaku **50**: 819–824. doi:10.2116/bunsekikagaku.50.819

Zhang, J. H., T. Nagahama, M. Abo, A. Okubo, and S. Yamazaki. 2005. Capillary electrophoretic analysis of dimethylsulfoniopropionate in sugarcane and marine algal extracts. Talanta **66**: 244–248. doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2004.11.019

## Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to IFREMER, the French Research Institute for the Exploration of the Sea, for funding this study through the ALEXVISIT project. The authors wish to thank Todd Kana (Bay Instruments) for precious advices on MIMS system optimization.

Submitted 07 July 2022
Revised 20 January 2024
Accepted 08 April 2024

Associate editor: Gregory A. Cutter
Swan, H. B., P. Armishaw, R. Iavetz, M. Alamgir, S. R. Davies, T. G. Bell, and G. B. Jones. 2014. An interlaboratory comparison for the quantification of aqueous dimethylsulfide. Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods **12**: 784–794. doi:10.4319/lom.2014.12.784

Swan, H. B., E. S. M. Deschaseaux, G. B. Jones, and B. D. Eyre. 2017. Quantification of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) in *Acropora* spp. of reef-building coral using mass spectrometry with deuterated internal standard. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. **409**: 1929–1942. doi:10.1007/s00216-016-0141-5

Tapiolas, D. M., J. B. Raina, A. Lutz, B. L. Willis, and C. A. Motti. 2013. Direct measurement of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) in reef-building corals using quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance (qNMR) spectroscopy. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. **443**: 85–89. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2013.02.037

Tortell, P. D. 2005. Dissolved gas measurements in oceanic waters made by membrane inlet mass spectrometry. Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods **3**: 24–37. doi:10.4319/lom.2005.3.24

White, R. H. 1982. Analysis of dimethyl sulfonium compounds in marine algae. J. Mar. Res. **40**: 529–536.

Wiesemeier, T., and G. Pohnert. 2007. Direct quantification of dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) in marine micro- and macroalgae using HPLC or UPLC/MS. J. Chromatogr. B **850**: 493–498. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2006.12.023

Wolfe, G. V., S. L. Strom, J. L. Holmes, T. Radzio, and M. B. Olson. 2002. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate cleavage by

marine phytoplankton in response to mechanical, chemical, or dark stress. J. Phycol. **38**: 948–960. doi:10.1046/j.1529-8817.2002.t01-1-01100.x

Yost, D., and C. Mitchelmore. 2012. Substrate kinetics of DMSP-lyases in various cultured *Symbiodinium* strains. Bull. Mar. Sci. **88**: 267–282. doi:10.5343/bms.2011.1046

Zhang, J. H., N. Nishimura, M. Abo, A. Okubo, and S. Yamazaki. 2001. Determination of 3-dimethylsulfoniopropionate in marine algae by low-pH capillary electrophoresis. Bunseki Kagaku **50**: 819–824. doi:10.2116/bunsekikagaku.50.819

Zhang, J. H., T. Nagahama, M. Abo, A. Okubo, and S. Yamazaki. 2005. Capillary electrophoretic analysis of dimethylsulfoniopropionate in sugarcane and marine algal extracts. Talanta **66**: 244–248. doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2004.11.019

## Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to IFREMER, the French Research Institute for the Exploration of the Sea, for funding this study through the ALEXVISIT project. The authors wish to thank Todd Kana (Bay Instruments) for precious advices on MIMS system optimization.

Submitted 07 July 2022
Revised 20 January 2024
Accepted 08 April 2024

Associate editor: Gregory A. Cutter