4.4 Article

Quantification of cardiolipin molecular species in Escherichia coli lipid extracts using liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 26, 期 19, 页码 2267-2274

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.6350

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1039659]
  2. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  3. Division Of Chemistry [1039659] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

RATIONALE Cardiolipin (CL), a glycerophospholipid containing four acyl chains, is found in most organisms including Gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli. While CL composes only a fraction of the total glycerophospholipids, the four acyl chains lead to a large number of possible molecular species as defined by the total number of carbons and unsaturations in the acyl chains. Understanding the molecular composition of CL, and how it changes under different growth conditions, will aid in understanding the complex role of CL in E. coli. METHODS Normal-phase liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry was used to quantify the CL molecular species (as defined by the total number of carbons:unsaturations in the acyl chains) in lipid extracts prepared from E. coli grown at 15 degrees C, 30 degrees C, 37 degrees C and 42 degrees C. RESULTS Fifty-six different CL species were identified as [M2H]2 ions in E. coli lipid extracts ranging from 60:0 to 72:4. CL species with an increased total number of unsaturations were more abundant in lipid extracts prepared from cells grown at 15 degrees C as compared to higher temperatures. CONCLUSIONS This work characterizes the CL composition of E. coli cells grown at various temperatures. By quantifying CL species at a molecular level we have illuminated the molecular complexity of the CL in this relatively simple model organism. This data will be useful for understanding CL function in E. coli and other organisms. Copyright (c) 2012 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