4.7 Article

Comprehensive Characterization and Relative Quantification of α-Amylase/Trypsin Inhibitors from Wheat Cultivars by Targeted HPLC-MS/MS

Journal

FOODS
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods9101448

Keywords

alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors; wheat cultivars; SDS-PAGE; peptides markers; relative quantification; mass spectrometry; LC-MRM-MS

Funding

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation under the Georg Forster Research Fellowship [3.4-CMR-1164093-GF-P, 3.3-TUR/1033086]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors (ATIs) are discussed as being responsible for non-celiac wheat sensitivity (NCWS), besides being known as allergenic components for baker's asthma. Different approaches for characterization and quantification including proteomics-based methods for wheat ATIs have been documented. In these studies generally the major ATIs have been addressed. The challenge of current study was then to develop a more comprehensive workflow encompassing all reviewed wheat-ATI entries in UniProt database. To substantially test proof of concept, 46 German and Turkish wheat samples were used. Two extractions systems based on chloroform/methanol mixture (CM) and under buffered denaturing conditions were evaluated. Three aspects were optimized, tryptic digestion, chromatographic separation, and targeted tandem mass spectrometric analysis (HPLC-MS/MS). Preliminary characterization with sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) documented the purity of the extracted ATIs with CM mixture and the amylase (60-80%)/trypsin (10-20%) inhibition demonstrated the bifunctional activity of ATIs. Thirteen (individual/common) biomarkers were established. Major ATIs (7-34%) were differently represented in samples. Finally, to our knowledge, the proposed HPLC-MS/MS method allowed for the first time so far the analysis of all 14 reviewed wheat ATI entries reported.

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