4.8 Article

Structural Characterization of Drug-like Compounds by Ion Mobility Mass Spectrometry: Comparison of Theoretical and Experimentally Derived Nitrogen Collision Cross Sections

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 84, 期 2, 页码 1026-1033

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac202625t

关键词

-

资金

  1. Amgen Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the use of drug-like molecules as a traveling wave (T-wave) ion mobility (IM) calibration sample set, covering the m/z range of 122.1-609.3, the nitrogen collision cross-section (Omega(N2)) range of 124.5-254.3 angstrom(2) and the helium collision cross-section (Omega(He)) range of 63.0-178.8 angstrom(2). Absolute Omega(N2) and Omega(He) values for the drug-like calibrants and two diastereomers were measured using a drift-tube instrument with radio frequency (RF) ion confinement. T-wave drift-times for the protonated diastereomers betamethasone and dexamethasone are reproducibly different. Calibration of these drift-times yields T-wave Omega(N2) values of 189.4 and 190.4 angstrom(2), respectively. These results demonstrate the ability of T-wave IM spectrometry to differentiate diastereomers differing in Omega(N2) value by only 1 angstrom(2), even though the resolution of these IM experiments were similar to 40 (Omega/Delta Omega). Demonstrated through density functional theory optimized geometries and ionic electrostatic surface potential analysis, the small but measurable mobility difference between the two diastereomers is mainly due to short-range van der Waals interactions with the neutral buffer gas and not long-range charge-induced dipole interactions. The experimental RF-confining drift-tube and T-wave Omega(N2) values were also evaluated using a nitrogen based trajectory method, optimized for T-wave operating temperature and pressures, incorporating additional scaling factors to the Lennard-Jones potentials. Experimental Omega(He) values were also compared to the original and optimized helium based trajectory methods.

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