4.5 Article

Highly sensitive profiling assay of acidic plant hormones using a novel mass probe by capillary electrophoresis-time of flight-mass spectrometry

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2011.03.003

关键词

Acidic plant hormone; Mass probe; CE-ESI-TOF-MS

资金

  1. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [20625516]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation [91017013, 31070327]
  3. Creative Research Groups, NSFC [20921062]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant hormones play crucial roles in plant growth and development. However, up to date, identification and quantification of acidic plant hormones with trace amount in complicated plant matrix is still a challenge. In current study, we developed a high sensitive assay for the determination acidic plant hormones in rice by combining capillary electrophoresis and electrospray ionization-time of flight-mass spectrometry (CE-ESI-TOF-MS). To improve the detection sensitivity of acidic plant hormones, 3-bromoactonyltrimethylammonium bromide (BTA) was synthesized as a new mass probe, which can react efficiently with acidic plant hormones in acetonitrile containing triethylamine (TEA). The positively charged BTA-derivatives were separated by CE using amino-coated capillary, which provided a reversed electroosmotic flow (EOF) at low pH, as well as reduced the adsorption of BTA-derivatives on the inner wall of capillary. Using the CE-ESI-TOF-MS method developed in current study, 15 acidic plant hormones, including 10 gibberellins (GAs), were identified and quantified with good linearities from 1.3 to 850 ng/mL with linear coefficient R(2) values of >0.99. The limits of detection (LODs) were in the range of 0.34-4.59 ng/mL. Recoveries of compounds from spiked beverage samples ranged from 84.6 to 112.2%. And a good reproducibility was obtained by evaluating the intra and inter-day precisions with relative standard deviations (RSDs) less than 6.7 and 9.9%, respectively. (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

4.5
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