4.7 Article

Comparing the efficiencies of hydrazide labels in the study of protein carbonylation in human serum albumin

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 404, 期 5, 页码 1399-1411

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-012-6235-9

关键词

Acrolein; Oxidative stress; Protein carbonylation; Mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Virginia Commonwealth University
  2. National Institute of Health [1R01AG034167]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, we establish a methodology for comparing the efficiencies of different hydrazide labels for detecting protein carbonyls. We have chosen acrolein-modified human serum albumin as a model. This system provides a convenient means of reproducibly generating carbonylated protein. Five hydrazide-based labels were tested. Three carry a biotin affinity tag, and the others are simple fatty acid hydrazides. For the biotin-based labels, the yield of the labeling reaction varies considerably, and the most commonly used label, biotin hydrazide, gives the lowest yield. The total tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) spectrum counts of modified peptides are similar for all of the biotin-based tags, indicating that factors beyond the labeling efficiency are important in determining the effectiveness of the label. In addition, there is a large variation in the number of spectra obtained for specific, modified peptides depending on the nature of the labeling group. This variation implies that the relative detectability of a particular modification site is highly dependent on the tagging reagent, and more importantly, titration schemes aimed at identifying the most reactive site based on its threshold concentration will be biased by the choice of tagging reagent. The fatty acid hydrazides are somewhat more effective than the biotin-based hydrazides in generating identifiable MS/MS spectra but offer no opportunity for enrichment. For the biotin-based tags, avidin affinity chromatography was used with the tryptic digests, and each tag led to similar enrichment levels.

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