4.7 Article

Glycoproteomics: Identifying the Glycosylation of Prostate Specific Antigen at Normal and High Isoelectric Points by LC-MS/MS

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 5570-5580

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr500575r

关键词

Prostate specific antigen; PSA; N-linked glycosylaton; glycopeptide; glycoproteomics; LC-MS/MS

资金

  1. Office of the Vice President for Research at Texas Tech University
  2. NIH [1R01GM093322-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prostate specific antigen (PSA) is currently used as a biomarker to diagnose prostate cancer. PSA testing has been widely used to detect and screen prostate cancer. However, in the diagnostic gray zone, the PSA test does not clearly distinguish between benign prostate hypertrophy and prostate cancer due to their overlap. To develop more specific and sensitive candidate biomarkers for prostate cancer, an in-depth understanding of the biochemical characteristics of PSA (such as glycosylation) is needed. PSA has a single glycosylation site at Asn69, with glycans constituting approximately 8% of the protein by weight. Here, we report the comprehensive identification and quantitation of N-glycans from two PSA isoforms using LC-MS/MS. There were 56 N-glycans associated with PSA, whereas 57 N-glycans were observed in the case of the PSA-high isoelectric point (pI) isoform (PSAH). Three sulfated/phosphorylated glycopeptides were detected, the identification of which was supported by tandem MS data. One of these sulfated/phosphorylated N-glycans, HexNAc5Hex4dHex1s/p1 was identified in both PSA and PSAH at relative intensities of 0.52 and 0.28%, respectively. Quantitatively, the variations were monitored between these two isoforms. Because we were one of the laboratories participating in the 2012 ABRF Glycoprotein Research Group (gPRG) study, those results were compared to that presented in this study. Our qualitative and quantitative results summarized here were comparable to those that were summarized in the interlaboratory study.

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

4.7
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