4.4 Article

Electrospray tandem quadrupole fragmentation of quinolone drugs and related ions. On the reversibility of water loss from protonated molecules

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 24, 期 22, 页码 3271-3278

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.4769

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Selected reaction monitoring (SRM) of quinolone drugs showed different sensitivities in aqueous solution vs. biological extract. The authors suggested formation of two singly protonated molecules with different behavior, one undergoing loss of H(2)O and the other loss of CO(2), so that SRM transitions might depend on the ratios of these forms generated by the electrospray. These surprising results prompted us to re-examine several quinolone drugs and some simpler compounds to further elucidate the mechanisms. We find that the relative contributions of loss of H(2)O vs. loss of CO(2) in tandem mass spectrometric (MS/MS) experiments depend not only on molecular structure and collision energy, but also, in certain cases, on the cone voltage. We further find that many product ions formed by loss of H(2)O can reattach a water molecule in the collision cell, whereas ions formed by loss of CO(2) do not. Since reattachment of H(2)O can occur after water loss in the cone region and prior to selection of the precursor ion, this effect leads to the dependence of MS/MS spectra on the cone voltage used in creating the precursor ion, which explains the formerly observed effect on SRM ratios. Our results support the earlier conclusion that varying amounts of two ions of the same m/z value are responsible for problems in the analysis of these drugs, but the origin is in dehydration/rehydration reactions. Thus, SRM transitions for certain complex compounds may be comparable only when monitored under equivalent ion-forming conditions, including the voltage used in the production of the protonated molecules in the electrospray ionization (ESI) source. Published in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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