4.7 Article

Phenylboronic acid functionalized C3N4 facultative hydrophilic materials for enhanced enrichment of glycopeptides

期刊

TALANTA
卷 191, 期 -, 页码 509-518

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.09.016

关键词

Boronic acid; Hydrophilic; Facultative; Glycosylation

资金

  1. National Key Program for Basic Research of China [2017YFC0906600, 2016YFA0501300, 2018YFC0910300]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81530021]
  3. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Project [Z161100002616036]
  4. Innovation Foundation of Medicine [BWS14J052, 16CXZ027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is challenging to capture N-glycopeptides with high recovery and high specificity from complicated biosystems. Herein, we present a facile and economical procedure to generate a novel self-assembling 4-Mercaptobenzene boronic acid functionalized and Au-doped Straticulate C3N4 (MASC), with enhanced affinity capability towards glycopeptides. The materials possess low pH value adaptation, high hydrophilicity and stability, good repeatability and recyclability, and provided high selectivity (1:100), low limit of detection (0.33 fmol/mu L), high enrichment efficiency (similar to 80%) and high recovery rate (similar to 90%) towards glycopeptides. The materials can capture glycopeptides unbiasedly, as demonstrated by the identification of 37 glycopeptides from IgG and 21 glycopeptides from horseradish peroxidase (HRP). The performance of MASC on human urine and serum glycoproteome analysis was also tested. An average of 1465 glycopeptides from 839 glycoproteins and 1553 glycopeptides from 884 glycoproteins were identified from female and male urine samples in a single mass spectrometry analysis. O-glycopeptides from human urine were also significantly enriched. Additionally, 463 glycopeptides assigned to 209 glycoproteins were identified from 5 pi, of human serum. All of these results indicate that MASC presents a good performance and applicability in the field of glycoproteomic research.

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