4.5 Article

The effect of various S-alkylating agents on the chromatographic behavior of cysteine-containing peptides in reversed-phase chromatography

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2012.12.010

关键词

Peptide reversed-phase HPLC; Chemically modified peptides; Peptide retention prediction; Cysteine alkylation

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the influence of various alkylation chemistries on the reversed phase (RP) HPLC behavior of Cys-containing peptides under the most popular RP-HPLC conditions used in proteomics: C18 phases with trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) or formic acid (FA) as the ion pairing modifiers, and separation at pH 10. Akylating agents studied are iodoacetamide (IAM), iodoacetic acid (IAA), 4-vinylpyridine (4-VP), acrylamide (AA) and methyl methanethiosulfonate (MMTS). These were compared against the retention of identical peptides without alkylation, i.e. free cysteines. The intrinsic hydrophobicity values of the Cys residue under formic acid conditions for these modifications were found to increase in the following order: 4-VP < IAM < AA < IAA < free Cys < MMTS. The retention contribution of the positively charged 4-VP derivative is affected by the nature of the ion-pairing modifier; this is the most hydrophilic residue for formic acid based eluents, and second most hydrophilic behind IAM-alkylated Cys using TFA eluent. Switching to a basic condition dramatically decreases the retention of free cysteine and IAA-alkylated analytes due to the ionization of side-chains. The opposite effect is observed for 4-VP, which become neutral at basic pHs. The careful measurement of the hydrophobic contributions for these residues is vital to the development of accurate peptide retention prediction models; the incorporation of these modifications into our Sequence Specific Retention Calculator model is presented. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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