4.4 Article

Rapid and efficient glycoprotein identification through microwave-assisted enzymatic digestion

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 24, 期 23, 页码 3461-3468

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.4774

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eli Lilly Endowment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identification of protein glycosylation sites is analytically challenging due to the diverse glycan structures associated with a glycoprotein. Mass spectrometry (MS)-based identification and characterization of glycoproteins has been achieved predominantly with the bottom-up approach, which typically involves the enzymatic cleavage of proteins to peptides prior to LC/MS or LC/MS/MS analysis. However, the process can be challenging due to the structural variations and steric hindrance imposed by the attached glycans. Alternatives to conventional heating protocols, that increase the rate of enzymatic cleavage of glycoproteins, may aid in addressing these challenges. An enzymatic digestion of a glycoprotein can be accelerated and made more efficient through microwave-assisted digestion. In this paper, a systematic study was conducted to explore the efficiency of microwave-assisted enzymatic (trypsin) digestion (MAED) of glycoproteins as compared with the conventional method. In addition, the optimum experimental parameters for the digestion such as temperature, reaction time, and microwave radiation power were investigated. It was determined that efficient tryptic digestion of glycoproteins was attained in 15 min, allowing comparable if not better sequence coverage through LC/MS/MS analysis. Optimum tryptic cleavage was achieved at 45 degrees C irrespective of the size and complexity of the glycoprotein. Moreover, MAED allowed the detection and identification of more peptides and subsequently higher sequence coverage for all model glycoprotein. MAED also did not appear to prompt a loss or partial cleavage of the glycan moieties attached to the peptide backbones. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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