4.5 Review

STRATEGIES FOR PROTEOMIC ANALYSIS OF NON-ENZYMATICALLY GLYCATED PROTEINS

期刊

MASS SPECTROMETRY REVIEWS
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 135-146

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mas.20187

关键词

non-enymatic glycation; post-translational modifications; hyperglycemia; mass spectrometry; glycated protein analysis

资金

  1. Swiss National Fund [3100A0104214]
  2. Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [-2007-0398]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among post-translational modifications of proteins, nonenzymatic glycation is one of the less frequently studied by experts i. it proteomics. Howevei; the relevance of protein glycation has been widely shown tip in several pathological conditions. In fact, non-enzymatic glycation has been strongly related to hyperglycemic conditions and, thus, to chronic complications associated to diabetes mellitus and renal failure as well as degenerative changes occurring in the course of aging. Two different glycation levels are distinguished whether the structure of the protein is seriously damaged or not. The biochemical and clinical significance of both glycations have been already described. Several reasons have contributed to the lack of highly sensitive and selective methods for identification and quantitation of glycated proteins. These are mainly (1) the low concentration. of glycated proteins in humans due to the low efficiency of the glycation process, (2) the modification of enzymatic digestion patterns, (3) the low ionization efficiency of glycated peptides, and (4) the lack of software including tools to identify this post-translational modification. The aim of this review is to provide the analytical guidelines required to succeed in the analysis of glycated proteins. For this purpose, different analytical approaches are considered to solve the main drawbacks derived from this gap in the proteomics field. Some challenges are finally proposed to be taken into account in future research. (C) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Mass Spec Rev 28:135-146, 2009

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