4.7 Article

HILIC-MRM-MS for Linkage-Specific Separation of Sialylated Glycopeptides to Quantify Prostate-Specific Antigen Proteoforms

Journal

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
Volume 19, Issue 7, Pages 2708-2716

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c00050

Keywords

prostate-specific antigen; N-glycosylation; glycopeptide; quantitative bottom-up proteomics; prostate cancer; urine; HILIC; MRM-MS; clinical chemistry; glyco-proteoforms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in body fluids may indicate prostate cancer (PCa), but it is noted that the clinical performance is rather poor. Specificity and sensitivity values of 20 and 94% at a cutoff value of 4.1 ng/mL, respectively, result in overdiagnosis and unnecessary interventions. Previous exploratory studies have indicated that the glycosylation of PSA potentially leads to improved PCa diagnosis based on qualitative analyses. However, the applied methods are not suited for a quantitative evaluation or implementation in a medical laboratory. Therefore, in this proof-of-principle study, we have evaluated the use of hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) in combination with targeted quantitative mass spectrometry for the sialic acid linkage-specific analysis of PSA glyco-proteoforms based on either trypsin or ArgC peptides. The efficiency of PSA proteolysis was optimized as well as the glycopeptide separation conditions (buffer type, strength, and pH). The HILIC-based analysis of PSA glyco-proteoforms presented here has the potential for the clinical validation of patient cohorts. The method shows the feasibility of the use of a HILIC stationary phase for the separation of isomeric glycopeptides to detect specific glyco-proteoforms. This is the first step toward the development and evaluation of PSA glyco-proteoforms for use in a clinical chemistry setting aiming for improved PCa diagnosis or screening.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available