4.5 Article

Distribution of C16:0, C18:0, C24:1, and C24:0 sulfatides in central nervous system lipid rafts by quantitative ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 467, 期 -, 页码 31-39

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2014.08.033

关键词

Sulfated galactosylceramides; Membrane microdomains; Tandem mass spectrometry; Metachromatic leukodystrophy

资金

  1. Department of Defense (DOD) [W81XWH-11-1-0198]
  2. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) [RG4439-A-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sulfated galactosylceramides (sulfatides) are glycosphingolipids associated with cholesterol- and sphingolipid-enriched membrane microdomains (lipid rafts) and are highly expressed in brain tissue. Although it is known that sulfatide species show heterogeneity in their fatty acid acyl group composition throughout brain development, their lipid raft distribution and biological relevance is poorly understood. We validated a fast and sensitive ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) method to measure developmentally regulated sulfatide species (06:0, C18:0, C24:1, and C24:0) in central nervous system (CNS) lipid rafts isolated without using detergent. Our UHPLC-MS/MS assay showed good accuracy and precision with a linear range of 5 to 1000 nM for C18:0 and C24:1 sulfatides and 10 to 1000 nM for 06:0 and C24:0 sulfatides. We applied this quantitative analysis to detergent-free lipid rafts isolated from wild-type mice and arylsulfatase A-deficient (ASA knockout) mice that accumulate sulfatides. All four sulfatide species were more abundant in raft membranes than in non-raft membranes, with a significant increase in lipid rafts isolated from ASA knockout mice. This is the first description of an analytical method to study these sulfatide species in raft and non-raft membranes and has the potential to be applied to preparations from other tissues. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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