4.5 Article

Label-Free Quantitation: A New Glycoproteomics Approach

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasms.2009.01.013

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1GM077266]
  2. National Science Foundation [0645120]
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  4. Division Of Chemistry [0645120] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We demonstrate herein a method for quantifying glycosylation changes on glycoproteins. This novel method uses MS data of characterized glycopeptides to analyze glycosylation profiles, and several quality control tests were done to demonstrate that the method is reproducible, robust, applicable to different types of glycoproteins, and tolerant of instrumental variability during ionization of the analytes. This method is unique in that it is the first label-free quantitative method specifically designed for glycopeptide analysis. It can be used to monitor changes in glycosylation in a glycosylation site-specific manner on a single glycoprotein, or it can be used to quantify glycosylation in a glycoprotein mixture. During mixture analysis, the method can discriminate between changes in glycosylation of a given protein, and changes in the glycoprotein's concentration in the mixture. This method is useful for quantitative analyses in biochemical studies of glycoproteins, where changes in glycosylation composition can be linked to functional differences; it could also be implemented in the pharmaceutical industry, where glycosylation profiles of glycoprotein-based therapeutics must be quantified. Finally, quantification of glycopeptides is an important aspect of glycopeptide-based biomarker discovery, and our quantitative approach could be a valuable asset to this field as well, provided the compositions of the glycopeptides to be quantified are identifiable using other methods. (J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 2009,20,1048-1059) (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Society for Mass Spectrometry

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