4.8 Article

Liquid Chromatography-Selected Reaction Monitoring (LC-SRM) Approach for the Separation and Quantitation of Sialylated N-Glycans Linkage Isomers

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 86, 期 21, 页码 10584-10590

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac5020996

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [P41RR018502, R41GM104631-01, R44GM093747-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study of N-linked glycans is among the most challenging bioanalytical tasks because of their complexity and variety. The presence of glycoform families that differ only in branching and/or linkage position makes the identification and quantitation of individual glycans exceedingly difficult. Quantitation of these individual glycans is important because changes in the abundance of these isomers are often associated with significant biomedical events. For instance, previous studies have shown that the ratio of a2-3 to a2-6 linked sialic acid (SA) plays an important role in cancer biology. Consequently, quantitative methods to detect alterations in the ratios of glycans based on their SA linkages could serve as a diagnostic tool in oncology, yet traditional glycomic profiling cannot readily differentiate between these linkage isomers. Here, we present a liquid chromatography-selected reaction monitoring (LC-SRM) approach that we demonstrate is capable of quantitating the individual SA linkage isomers. The LC method is capable of separating sialylated N-glycan isomers differing in a2-3 and a2-6 linkages using a novel superficially porous particle (Fused-Core) Penta-HILIC (hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography) column. SRM detection provides the relative quantitation of each SA linkage isomer, and minimizes interferences from coeluting glycans that are problematic for UV/Fluorescence based quantitation. With our approach, the relative quantitation of each SA linkage isomer is obtained from a straightforward liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) experiment

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

4.8
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