4.5 Article

Delineating mechanisms of dissociation for isomeric heparin disaccharides using isotope labeling and ion trap tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasms.2004.05.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM47356] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heparin and heparan sulfate (HS) glycosaminoglycans have been identified as important players in many physiological as well as pathophysiological settings. A better understanding of the biosynthesis and structure of these molecules is critical for further elucidation of their biological function. We have demonstrated the successful use of negative electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry in the differentiation of all twelve standard heparin-building blocks, including the potentially important N-unsubstituted disaccharides. Collision induced dissociation of each of the isomeric disaccharides provided unique product ion spectra, useful for identification and quantification of the relative amounts of each isomer present. In the research presented herein, isotopic labeling studies using O-18 and H-2 were used to determine the origins of each of the neutral losses observed in the product ion spectra, and mechanisms of dissociation consistent with the observed data were postulated. The general mechanisms postulated were for the generation of B, Y, and Z ions formed from glycosidic cleavages, as well as A and X ions formed from cross-ring cleavages. The eight isomeric heparin disaccharides all underwent cross-ring cleavage to form X-0,2(1) and (0,2)A(2) ions, and further experiments suggest that the mechanisms of formation of these ions are through a charge-remote process. The tandem mass spectrometry data presented herein also provide a foundation for further developments towards a practical analysis tool for the structural elucidation of larger, biologically important heparin/HS oligosaccharides by using mass spectrometry. (C) 2004 American Society for Mass Spectrometry.

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