4.7 Article

A practical approach to enrich intact tryptic N-glycopeptides through size exclusion chromatography and hydrophilicity (SELIC) using an acrylamide-agarose composite gel system

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 1058, 期 -, 页码 107-116

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2019.01.044

关键词

Intact tryptic N-glycopeptide; Enrichment; Size exclusion chromatography; Hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography; Acrylamide-agarose composite gel; Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program [2016YFA0501303, 2018YFC0910300]
  2. NSF of China [21335002, 31670835]
  3. Programs Foundation of Ministry of Education of China [20130071110034]
  4. Key Laboratory of Glycoconjugates Research Ministry of Public Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing researches proved that abnormal glycosylation is strongly correlated with many diseases. Specially, site-specific glycosylation and its associated heterogeneity are closely related to the function and activity of the glycoprotein. However, intact N-glycopeptide analysis still faces great challenges because the presence of highly abundant non-glycosylated peptides would suppress the ionization of lowly abundant glycopeptides. In the present study, we developed a practical intact tryptic N-glycopeptide enrichment method using acrylamide-agarose composite gel that combined the size exclusion chromatography and hydrophilic (named SELIC) effects, aimed to remove the detergent rapidly and effectively, as well as enrich intact N-glycopeptides while extracting peptides. This is a useful tool to facilitate the intact N-glycopeptides analysis of complex protein mixtures, particularly for samples that extracted from formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues by SDS. Using this method, we successfully identified 700 site-specific intact tryptic N-glycopeptides corresponding to 261 glycosylation sites on 191 glycoproteins from FFPE thymoma tissues. (C) 2019 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

4.7
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