4.7 Article

High-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry for mapping and sequencing glycosaminoglycan-derived oligosaccharides

期刊

NATURE PROTOCOLS
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 993-1004

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2010.48

关键词

-

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health [GM38060, HL096972, HL101721, GM090127]
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL096972, RC2HL101721] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM038060, R01GM090127] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glycosaminoglycans (GAGS) have proven to be very difficult to analyze and characterize because of their high negative charge density, polydispersity and sequence heterogeneity. as the specificity of the interactions between GAGS and proteins results from the structure of these polysaccharides, an understanding of GAG structure is essential for developing a structure-activity relationship. electrospray ionization (ESI) mass spectrometry (MS) is particularly promising for the analysis of oligosaccharides chemically or enzymatically generated by GAGs because of its relatively soft ionization capacity. Furthermore, on-line high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-MS greatly enhances the characterization of complex mixtures of GAG-derived oligosaccharides, providing important structural information and affording their disaccharide composition. a detailed protocol for producing oligosaccharides from various GAGs, using controlled, specific enzymatic or chemical depolymerization, is presented, together with their HPLC separation, using volatile reversed-phase ion-pairing reagents and on-line ESI-MS structural identification. this analysis provides an oligosaccharide map together with sequence information from a reading frame beginning at the nonreducing end of the GAG chains. the preparation of oligosaccharides can be carried out in 10 h, with subsequent HPLC analysis in 1-2 h and HPLC-MS analysis taking another 2 h.

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