4.2 Review

Analysis of sulfates on low molecular weight heparin using mass spectrometry: structural characterization of enoxaparin

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF PROTEOMICS
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 503-513

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14789450.2018.1480110

关键词

Low molecular weight heparin; sulfolyltransferase; mass spectrometry; size exclusion chromatography; enoxaparin

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA210637] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA210637] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Structural characterization of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is critical to meet biosimilarity standards. In this context, the review focuses on structural analysis of labile sulfates attached to the side-groups of LMWH using mass spectrometry. A comprehensive review of this topic will help readers to identify key strategies for tackling the problem related to sulfate loss. At the same time, various mass spectrometry techniques are presented to facilitate compositional analysis of LMWH, mainly enoxaparin.Areas covered: This review summarizes findings on mass spectrometry application for LMWH, including modulation of sulfates, using enzymology and sample preparation approaches. Furthermore, popular open-source software packages for automated spectral data interpretation are also discussed. Successful use of LC/MS can decipher structural composition for LMWH and help evaluate their sameness or biosimilarity with the innovator molecule. Overall, the literature has been searched using PubMed by typing various search queries such as enoxaparin', mass spectrometry', low molecular weight heparin', structural characterization', etc.Expert commentary: This section highlights clinically relevant areas that need improvement to achieve satisfactory commercialization of LMWHs. It also primarily emphasizes the advancements in instrumentation related to mass spectrometry, and discusses building automated software for data interpretation and analysis.

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

4.2
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