4.5 Article

Branching pattern and sequence analysis of underivatized oligosaccharides by combined MS/MS of singly and doubly charged molecular ions in negative-ion electrospray mass spectrometry

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1044-0305(02)00363-X

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We previously reported that sequence and partial linkage information, including chain and blood-group types, of reducing oligosaccharides can be obtained from negative-ion electrospray CID MS/MS on a quadrupole-orthogonal time-of-flight instrument with high sensitivity and without derivatization (Chai, W.; Piskarev, V.; Lawson, A. M. Anal. Chem. 2001, 73, 651-657). In contrast to oligonucleotides and peptides, oligosaccharides can form branched structures that result in a greater degree of structural complexity. In the present work we apply negative-ion electrospray CID MS/MS to core-branching pattern analysis using nine 3,6-branched and variously fucosylated oligosaccharides based on hexasaccharide backbones LNH/LNnH as examples. The important features of the method are the combined use of CID MS/MS of singly and doubly charged molecular ions of underivatized oligosaccharides to deduce the branching pattern and to assign the structural details of each of the 3- and 6-branches. These spectra give complimentary structural information. In the spectra of [M H](-), fragment ions from the 6-linked branch are dominant and those from the 3-linked branch are absent, while fragment ions from both branches occur in the spectra of [M - 2H](2-). This allows the distinction of fragment ions derived from either the 3- or 6-branches. In addition, a unique D2beta-beta ion, arising from double D-type cleavage at the 3-linked glycosidic bond of the branched Gal core residue, provides direct evidence of the branching pattern with sequence and partial linkage information being derived from C- and A-type fragmentations, respectively. (J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 2002,13, 670-679) (C) 2002 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