4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Capillary zone electrophoresis of α-helical diastereomeric peptide pairs with anionic ion-pairing reagents

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 1043, Issue 1, Pages 113-122

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2004.04.029

Keywords

ion-interaction capillary zone electrophoresis; capillary electrophoresis; diastereomer separation; peptides

Funding

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01GM61855, R01 GM061855-05] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study uses an unique capillary electrophoresis (CE) approach, that we have termed ion-interaction capillary zone electrophoresis (II-CZE), for the separation of diastereomeric peptide pairs where a single site in the centre of the non-polar face of an 18-residue amphipathic alpha-helical peptide is substituted by the 19 L- Or D-amino acids. Through the addition of perfluorinated acids at very high concentrations (up to 400 mM), such concentration levels not having been used previously in chromatography or CE, to the background electrolyte (pH 2.0), we have been able to achieve baseline resolution of all 19 diastereomeric peptide pairs with an uncoated capillary. Since each diastereomeric peptide pair has the same sequence, identical mass-to-charge ratio and identical intrinsic hydrophobicity, such a separation by CZE has previously been considered theoretically impossible. Excellent resolution was achieved due to maximum advantage being taken of even subtle disruption of peptide structure/conformation (due to the presence Of D-amino acids) of the non-polar face of the amphipathic alpha-helix and its interaction with the hydrophobic anionic ion-pairing reagents. In addition, due to the excellent resolution of diastereomeric peptide pairs by this novel CZE approach, we have also been able to separate a mixture of these closely-related alpha-helical peptides. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available