4.7 Article

Particle size measurement of lipoprotein fractions using diffusion-ordered NMR spectroscopy

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 402, 期 7, 页码 2407-2415

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-011-5705-9

关键词

Lipoprotein; NMR; DOSY; TEM

资金

  1. CIBER de Diabetes y Enfermedades Metabolicas Asociadas (ISCIII, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion)
  2. FIS [PI 081409]
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/H024336/1, EP/I007989/1]
  4. EPSRC [EP/H024336/1, EP/I007989/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I007989/1, EP/H024336/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sizes of certain types of lipoprotein particles have been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, there is currently no gold standard technique for the determination of this parameter. Here, we propose an analytical procedure to measure lipoprotein particles sizes using diffusion-ordered nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (DOSY). The method was tested on six lipoprotein fractions, VLDL, IDL, LDL1, LDL2, HDL2, and HDL3, which were obtained by sequential ultracentrifugation from four patients. We performed a pulsed-field gradient experiment on each fraction to obtain a mean diffusion coefficient, and then determined the apparent hydrodynamic radius using the Stokes-Einstein equation. To validate the hydrodynamic radii obtained, the particle size distribution of these lipoprotein fractions was also measured using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The standard errors of duplicate measurements of diffusion coefficient ranged from 0.5% to 1.3%, confirming the repeatability of the technique. The coefficient of determination between the hydrodynamic radii and the TEM-derived mean particle size was r (2) = 0.96, and the agreement between the two techniques was 85%. Thus, DOSY experiments have proved to be accurate and reliable for estimating lipoprotein particle sizes.

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