4.8 Article

Determining Double Bond Position in Lipids Using Online Ozonolysis Coupled to Liquid Chromatography and Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 90, 期 3, 页码 1915-1924

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b04007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Harold Stirling Graduate Fellowship from the Vanderbilt University Graduate School
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01GM092218]
  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [83573601]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing focus on lipid metabolism has revealed a need for analytical techniques capable of structurally characterizing lipids with a high degree of specificity. Lipids can exist as any one of a large number of double bond positional isomers, which are indistinguishable by single-stage mass spectrometry alone. Ozonolysis reactions coupled to mass spectrometry have previously been demonstrated as a means for localizing double bonds in unsaturated lipids. Here we describe an online, solution-phase reactor using ozone produced via a low-pressure mercury lamp, which generates aldehyde products diagnostic of cleavage at a particular double bond position. This flow-cell device is utilized in conjunction with structurally selective ion mobility-mass spectrometry. The lamp-mediated reaction was found to be effective for multiple lipid species in both positive and negative ionization modes, and the conversion efficiency from precursor to product ions was tunable across a wide range (20-95%) by varying the flow rate through the ozonolysis device. Ion mobility separation of the ozonolysis products generated additional structural information and revealed the presence of saturated species in a complex mixture. The method presented here is simple, robust, and readily coupled to existing instrument platforms with minimal modifications necessary. For these reasons, application to standard lipidomic workflows is possible and aids in more comprehensive structural characterization of a myriad of lipid species.

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

4.8
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