4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Analysis of metallothionein by capillary electrophoresis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1226, 期 -, 页码 31-42

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.10.015

关键词

Metallothionein; Isoforms; Capillary electrophoresis; Heavy metals; Thiol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metallothioneins (MTs) belong to proteins playing a key role in metal ion homeostasis, maintenance of the redox pool and free radical scavenging in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Strong interactions of the MTs with essential and non-essential metal ions as well as unique MT structure and behavior under various conditions are subjects of numerous studies. Among other analytical techniques, capillary electrophoresis (CE) has been proven to be an effective tool not only for determination of MT in biological samples, but also for the identification of its isoforms and sub-isoforms in various types of samples. Moreover, CE has a great potential to investigate MT-metal and MT-protein interactions, which has not been fully utilized yet. Thus, it is not surprising that numerous studies devoted to the optimization of CE conditions such as background electrolyte composition, electrolyte modifiers and/or capillary surface modifications have been carried out since MT's discovery in 1957. From the MTs' detection point of view, optical detectors including absorbance, laser-induced fluorescence have been employed. Also mass spectrometric detection coupled to the various ionization techniques including inductively coupled plasma (ICP) and electrospray ionization (ESI) has been utilized for detail MT characterization and sensitive determination. In this paper, articles published from eighties to 2011 are reviewed, presenting both optimization of key parameters of CE method for MT determination as well as utilization of CE as a routine analytical technique for further investigation of complex biological and biochemical processes where MT is a key component. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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