4.5 Article

Determination of adenine and pyridine nucleotides in glucose-limited chemostat cultures of Penicillium simplicissimum by one-step ethanol extraction and ion-pairing liquid chromatography

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 359, 期 1, 页码 132-140

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2006.09.012

关键词

nucleotides; Penicillium; HPLC; glucose limitation; chemostat; ethanol extraction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Under specific conditions Penicillium simplicissimum excretes large amounts of organic acids, mainly citrate. As the energetic status of the hyphae might play a role in that respect, we developed a method for the determination of adenine (adenosine triphosphate, adenosine diphosphate, and adenosine monophosphate) and pyridine (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide and reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH)) nucleotides in hyphae of P. simplicissimum. An optimum separation of the five compounds in less than 15 min was possible on a C-8 column, utilizing 50 mM aqueous triethylamine-buffer (pH 6.5) and acetonitrile as mobile phase; detection was performed at 254 nm. With the exception of NADH, which could not be determined accurately due to stability problems, the method was sensitive (LOD <= 0.7 ng on-column), repeatable (sigma(rel) <= 4.4%), accurate (recovery rates between 97.9 and 104.9%), and precise (intraday variation <= 9.4%, interday variation <= 6.2%). For an optimum extraction of the nucleotides the chemostat samples were directly placed into hot (90 degrees C) 50% ethanol, and shaken for 10 min, followed by evaporation of the solvent and a solid phase extraction cleanup of the redissolved aqueous samples. With this method the nucleotide concentrations in hyphae from a glucose-limited chemostat culture and the respective energy charge were determined. Additionally, the effect of the time lag between sampling and extraction and the effect of a glucose pulse on nucleotide concentrations were determined. (c) 2006 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