Quantification of the PR-39 cathelicidin compound in porcine blood by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. | Pepdox
Quantification of the PR-39 cathelicidin compound in porcine blood by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry.
Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM2015PMID: 26331932
RATIONALE: The PR-39 porcine cathelicidin occurs naturally in animal neutrophils. Its main function is antimicrobial activity, which potentially can be used in antibiotic treatments in veterinary medicine. Investigations concerning such a use require the detection and quantification of PR-39 in a given sample. The aim of this work is to determine the concentration of PR-39 contained in porcine blood.
METHODS: Prior to matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) analysis, the porcine blood sample was subjected to crude extraction in order to release the active form of PR-39 from the neutrophil granules. Next, gel filtration chromatography was performed to separate PR-39 from other cathelicidins present in porcine blood. Positive ion MALDI time-of-flight (TOF) mass spectra of the resulting portion of lyophilisate with unknown PR-39 content were acquired in linear mode. To quantify PR-39 in the lyophilisate sample, the standard addition method was applied. The PR-39 concentration obtained in the lyophilisate sample was then converted into the peptide concentration in porcine blood.
RESULTS: The linear fit function of the constructed calibration curve indicates an excellent correlation between the PR-39 peak intensity and the added quantity of synthetic PR-39 (R(2) = 0.994) and a low relative standard deviation of the slope = 1.98%. From the x-intercept of the straight line, we estimated the PR-39 concentration in porcine blood to be 20.5 ± 4.6 ng/mL.
CONCLUSIONS: The MALDI method was successfully applied for the quantitative analysis of PR-39 found in porcine blood. Compared with other available methods, it is relatively easy, inexpensive and not time-consuming. Despite the method having lower accuracy than the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), the results obtained here, by a much simpler method, are in good agreement with the literature data.