4.6 Article

Ultratrace liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis of large peptides with post-translational modifications using narrow-bore polystyrene-divinylbenzene) monolithic columns and extended range proteomic analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1154, 期 1-2, 页码 295-307

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2007.03.128

关键词

extended range proteome analysis (ERPA); protein characterization; monolithic column; ultranarrow column

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM015847-35, R37 GM015847, F32 GM015847, GM 15847, R01 GM015847] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper describes approaches to optimize the chromatographic performance for our recently developed LC-MS platform, extended range proteomic analysis (ERPA), for comprehensive protein characterization at the ultratrace level. Large digested peptide fragments up to 10 kDa (e.g., from lysyl endopeptidase digestion) with or without modifications were well separated with high resolution using narrow bore (20 and 50 pm I.D.) poly(styrene-divinylbenzene) (PS-DVB) monolithic columns constructed by in situ solution polymerization. Importantly, the macroporous structure of the monolithic columns facilitated mass transport of large peptides with improved recovery relative to small pore size reversed-phase packings. High sequence coverage (>95%), including identification of phosphorylated and glycosylated particles was achieved for beta-casein and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) at the 4 and 20 fmol levels per injection, respectively, using the 20 mu m I.D. PS-DVB monolithic column. For peptides with greater ionization efficiency, the detection limit could be lowered to similar to-400 zmol. Typically, the separation system produced a peak capacity of similar to 200 for a 10 cm column. This paper demonstrates that narrow-bore monolithic columns are suitable for high sensitivity and high-resolution separation of large peptide fragments by LC-MS analysis. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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