4.4 Article

Performance evaluation on a wide set of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization matrices for the detection of oligosaccharides in a high-throughput mass spectrometric screening of carbohydrate depolymerizing enzymes

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 25, 期 14, 页码 2059-2070

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.5060

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Compared to other analytical methods, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI-MS) presents several unique advantages for the structural characterization of degradation products of carbohydrates. Our final goal is to implement this technique as a high-throughput platform, with the aim of exploring natural biodiversity to discover new carbohydrate depolymerizing enzymes. In this approach, a variety of carbohydrates will be used as enzymes substrates and MALDI-MS will be employed to monitor the oligosaccharides produced. One drawback of MALDI, however, is that the choice of the matrix is largely dependent on the chemical properties of the analyte. In this context, our objective in the present work was to find the smallest set of MALDI matrices able to detect chemically heterogeneous oligosaccharides. This was done through the performance evaluation of more than 40 MALDI matrices preparations. Homogeneity of analyte-matrix deposits was considered as a critical feature, especially since the final objective is to fully automate the analyses. Evaluation of the matrices was done by means of a rigorous statistical approach. Amongst all tested compounds, our work proposes the use of the DHB/DMA ionic matrix as the most generic matrix, for rapid detection of a variety of polysaccharides including neutral, anionic, methylated, sulfated, and acetylated compounds. The selected matrices were then used to screen crude bacterial incubation media for the detection of enzymatic degradation products. Copyright (C) 2011 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