4.5 Article

Conductive carbon tape used for support and mounting of both whole animal and fragile heat-treated tissue sections for MALDI MS imaging and quantitation

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOMICS
卷 75, 期 16, 页码 4912-4920

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2012.07.006

关键词

MS imaging; Whole body; Heat-stabilized

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [2008-5597, 2009-6050, 2010-5421, 2011-3170]
  2. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analysis of whole animal tissue sections by MALDI MS imaging (MSI) requires effective sample collection and transfer methods to allow the highest quality of in situ analysis of small or hard to dissect tissues. We report on the use of double-sided adhesive conductive carbon tape during whole adult rat tissue sectioning of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) embedded animals, with samples mounted onto large format conductive glass and conductive plastic MALDI targets, enabling MSI analysis to be performed on both TOF and FT-ICR MALDI mass spectrometers. We show that mounting does not unduly affect small molecule MSI detection by analyzing tiotropium abundance and distribution in rat lung tissues, with direct on-tissue quantitation achieved. Significantly, we use the adhesive tape to provide support to embedded delicate heat-stabilized tissues, enabling sectioning and mounting to be performed that maintained tissue integrity on samples that had previously been impossible to adequately prepare section for MSI analysis. The mapping of larger peptidomic molecules was not hindered by tape mounting samples and we demonstrate this by mapping the distribution of PEP-19 in both native and heat-stabilized rat brains. Furthermore, we show that without heat stabilization PEP-19 degradation fragments can detected and identified directly by MALDI MSI analysis. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Imaging Mass Spectrometry: A User's Guide to a New Technique for Biological and Biomedical Research. (C) 2012 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