4.3 Article

Solid-state NMR adiabatic TOBSY sequences provide enhanced sensitivity for multidimensional high-resolution magic-angle-spinning 1H MR spectroscopy

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE
卷 193, 期 2, 页码 251-258

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2008.05.017

关键词

Total through bond correlation spectroscopy (TOBSY); Total correlation spescroscopy (TOCSY); high-resolution magic-angle-spinning (HRMAS); adiabatic inversion pulses (AIP); glioblastoma multiforme (GBM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose a solid-state NMR method that maximizes the advantages of high-resolution magic-angle-spinning (HRMAS) applied to intact biopsies when compared to more conventional liquid-state NMR approaches. Theoretical treatment, numerical Simulations and experimental results oil intact human brain biopsies are presented. Experimentally, it is proven that an optimized adiabatic TOBSY (TOtal through Bond correlation SpectroscopY) solid-state NMR pulse sequence for two-dimensional H-1-H-1 homonuclear scalar-coupling longitudinal isotropic mixing provides a 20%-50% improvement in signal-to-noise ratio relative to its liquid-state analogue TOCSY (TOtal Correlation SpectroscopY). For this purpose we have refined the C9(15)(1), symmetry-based C-13 TOBSY Pulse sequence for H-1 MRS use and compared it to MLEV-16 TOCSY sequence. Both sequences were rotor-synchronized and implemented using WURST-8 adiabatic inversion pulses. As discussed theoretically and shown in Simulations, the improved magnetization-transfer comes from actively removing residual dipolar Couplings from the average Hamiltonian. Importantly, the solid-state NMR techniques are tailored to perform measurements at low temperatures where sample degradation is reduced. This is the first demonstration of such a concept for HRMAS metabolic profiling of disease processes, including cancer, from biopsies requiring reduced sample degradation for further genomic analysis. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据