4.5 Article

Investigations of Some Liquid Matrixes for Analyte Quantification by MALDI

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13361-015-1202-2

关键词

Liquid matrix; MALDI; MALDI quantification; 3AQ/CHCA; MALDI temperature; Matrix suppression; Reproducible MALDI

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant - Korean government (MSIP) [2014068113]
  2. Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea
  3. [IBS-R006-D1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sample inhomogeneity is one of the obstacles preventing the generation of reproducible mass spectra by MALDI and to their use for the purpose of analyte quantification. As a potential solution to this problem, we investigated MALDI with some liquid matrixes prepared by nonstoichiometric mixing of acids and bases. Out of 27 combinations of acids and bases, liquid matrixes could be produced from seven. When the overall spectral features were considered, two liquid matrixes using alpha-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid as the acid and 3-aminoquinoline and N,N-diethylaniline as bases were the best choices. In our previous study of MALDI with solid matrixes, we found that three requirements had to be met for the generation of reproducible spectra and for analyte quantification: (1) controlling the temperature by fixing the total ion count, (2) plotting the analyte-to-matrix ion ratio versus the analyte concentration as the calibration curve, and (3) keeping the matrix suppression below a critical value. We found that the same requirements had to be met in MALDI with liquid matrixes as well. In particular, although the liquid matrixes tested here were homogeneous, they failed to display spot-to-spot spectral reproducibility unless the first requirement above was met. We also found that analyte-derived ions could not be produced efficiently by MALDI with the above liquid matrixes unless the analyte was sufficiently basic. In this sense, MALDI processes with solid and liquid matrixes should be regarded as complementary techniques rather than as competing ones.

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