4.6 Article

A rapid separation technique for overcoming suppression of triacylglycerols by phosphatidylcholine using MALDI-TOF MS

期刊

JOURNAL OF LIPID RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 8, 页码 2428-2434

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1194/jlr.D003798

关键词

lipids; suppression-effects; solid phase extraction

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health NCRR [5P20RR015569]
  2. Office Of The Director
  3. EPSCoR [1003970] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phospholipids and triacylglycerols (TAGs) are important classes of lipids in biological systems. Rapid methods have been developed for their characterization in crude samples, including MALDI time-of-flight MS. For mixtures, MALDI often selectively shows only some components. For example, phosphatidylcholine (PC) suppresses detection of other lipids. Most rapid MS methods detect either TAGs or phospholipids but not both. Herein, we demonstrate a simple approach to rapidly screen mixtures containing multiple lipid classes. To validate this approach, reference lipids [PC, tripalmitin (PPP), and phosphatidylethanolamine (PE)] and real samples (beef, egg yolk) were used. In a binary mixture with a strong suppressor (PC), PPP was greatly suppressed. After a simple separation, suppression was virtually eliminated. A mixture of nominally nonsuppressing lipids (PE and PPP) was not adversely affected by separation. Ground beef and egg yolk were used to demonstrate detection of known lipid compositions where other methods have missed one or more lipids or lipid classes. Separation was performed using solid phase extraction with a PrepSep florisil column. A 10 min separation allows rapid screening for lipids and changes in lipids. It is sufficient to clearly detect all lipids and overcome suppression effects in complex lipid mixtures.-Emerson, B., J. Gidden, J. O. Lay, Jr., and B. Durham. A rapid separation technique for overcoming suppression of triacylglycerols by phosphatidylcholine using MALDI-TOF MS. J. Lipid Res. 51: 2428-2434.

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