4.1 Article

Quantification of seven apolipoproteins in human plasma by proteotypic peptides using fast LC-MS/MS

Journal

PROTEOMICS CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
Volume 7, Issue 11-12, Pages 794-801

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/prca.201300034

Keywords

Apolipoproteins; Liquid chromatography-linear ion trap mass spectrometry; Proteotypic peptide

Funding

  1. LIFE-Leipzig Research Center for Civilization Diseases, Universitat Leipzig
  2. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
  3. Free State of Saxony

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeWe investigated different sample pretreatment strategies and developed a standardized sample pretreatment protocol for absolute quantification of seven apolipoproteins (Apos) in human serum by LC-MS/MS using proteotypic peptides and corresponding stable isotope-labeled peptides as internal standards. Experimental designMicro-LC was coupled with quadrupole-linear ion trap MS for quantification and peptide confirmation. Denaturation, reduction, alkylation, and tryptic digestion including ultrasound and microwave assistance were investigated. Method comparison of 50 plasma samples with an immunoassay was performed for Apo A-I and Apo B. ResultsTryptic digestion times ranged between 5min (Apo A-I, Apo E, Apo A-IV) and 16h (Apo A-II). Ultrasound and microwave assistance did not improve the digestion yield. Linearity was found between 0.1 nmol/L and 100 mmol/L. The lower limits of quantification were 0.4mol/L for Apo A-I, Apo A-IV, Apo B-100, Apo C-I, Apo C-III, Apo E, and <1.4mol/L for Apo A-II. CV <13% were determined. Comparison with immunoassays showed a good agreement for Apo A-I and Apo B. Conclusion and clinical relevanceThe validated preanalytical protocol enables a reliable simultaneous analysis of seven Apos in human serum without depletion. The method can now be applied in clinical studies to investigate the Apo distributions in cardiovascular diseases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available