4.7 Article

Practical Immunoaffinity-Enrichment LC-MS for Measuring Protein Kinetics of Low-Abundance Proteins

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 60, 期 9, 页码 1217-1224

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2014.222455

关键词

-

资金

  1. Merck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: For a more complete understanding of pharmacodynamic, metabolic, and pathophysiologic effects, protein kinetics, such as production rate and fractional catabolic rate, can offer substantially more information than protein concentration alone. Kinetic experiments with stable isotope tracers typically require laborious sample preparation and are most often used for studying abundant proteins. Here we describe a practical methodology for measuring isotope enrichment into low-abundance proteins that uses an automated procedure and immunoaffinity enrichment (IA) with LC-MS. Low-abundance plasma proteins cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) were studied as examples. METHODS: Human participants (n = 39) were infused with [H-2(3)] leucine, and blood samples were collected at multiple time points. Sample preparation and analysis were automated and multiplexed to increase throughput. Proteins were concentrated from plasma by use of IA and digested with trypsin to yield proteotypic peptides that were analyzed by microflow chromatography-mass spectrometry to measure isotope enrichment. RESULTS: The IA procedure was optimized to provide the greatest signal intensity. Use of a gel-free method increased throughput while increasing the signal. The intra-and interassay CVs were < 15% at all isotope enrichment levels studied. More than 1400 samples were analyzed in < 3 weeks without the need for instrument stoppages or user interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of automated gel-free methods to multiplex the measurement of isotope enrichment was applied to the low-abundance proteins CETP and PCSK9. (C) 2014 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

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

4.7
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