4.6 Article

Alkylamine ion-pairing reagents and the chromatographic separation of oligonucleotides

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1580, 期 -, 页码 110-119

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2018.10.040

关键词

Alkylamines; Electrospray; Ion-pair chromatography; Micellar chromatography; Oligonucleotides

资金

  1. ProQR Therapeutics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alkylamines are commonly used to improve both chromatographic and mass spectral performance of electrospray ionization liquid chromatography mass spectrometry based methods for the analysis of oligonucleotides. Recently several new alkylamines have been introduced to enhance the electrospray mass spectral response for oligonucleotides; however, the chromatographic properties of these new alkylamines have not been rigorously assessed. We have investigated the retention, peak width, resolution and general chromatographic performance of fifteen different alkylamines for the separation of a model DNA, RNA and an antisense therapeutic oligonucleotide. Eleven of the fifteen alkylamines were shown to provide similar chromatographic performance across all three classes of oligonucleotides. Based on these findings, a model for the mechanism of retention of oligonucleotides using alkylamines and hexafluoroisopropanol mobile phases is proposed. Depending on the concentrations of alkylamines and pH adjustment, oligonucleotides can be retained by micellar chromatography and not the generally held ion pairing mechanism. This conclusion is supported by light scattering, transmission electron microscopy and ion mobility experiments detecting three micron aggregates in the mobile phase at concentrations that are routinely used for LC-MS analysis of oligonucleotides. These aggregates are not detected at lower alkylamine concentrations where the retention mechanism follows an ion-pairing mechanism. The formation of these aggregates appears to be dependent on the pH of the mobile phase. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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