Klaene Joshua J, Sharma Vaneet K, Glick James, Vouros Paul
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Barnett Institute, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Barnett Institute, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Cancer Lett. 2013 Jun 28;334(1):10-9. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2012.08.007. Epub 2012 Sep 4.
The technique of (32)P-postlabeling, which was introduced in 1982 for the analysis of DNA adducts, has long been the method of choice for in vivo studies because of its high sensitivity as it requires only <10μg DNA to achieve the detection of 1 adduct in 10(10) normal bases. (32)P-postlabeling has therefore been utilized in numerous human and animal studies of DNA adduct formation. Like all techniques (32)P-postlabeling does have several disadvantages including the use of radioactive phosphorus, lack of internal standards, and perhaps most significantly does not provide any structural information for positive identification of unknown adducts, a shortcoming that could significantly hamper progress in the field. Structural methods have since been developed to allow for positive identification of DNA adducts, but to this day, the same level of sensitivity and low sample requirements provided by (32)P-postlabeling have not been matched. In this mini review we will discuss the (32)P-postlabeling method and chronicle the transition to mass spectrometry via the hyphenation of gas chromatography, capillary electrophoresis, and ultimately liquid chromatography which, some 30years later, is only just starting to approach the sensitivity and low sample requirements of (32)P-postlabeling. This paper focuses on the detection of bulky carcinogen-DNA adducts, with no mention of oxidative damage or small alkylating agents. This is because the (32)P-postlabeling assay is most compatible with bulky DNA adducts. This will also allow a more comprehensive focus on a subject that has been our particular interest since 1990.
1982年引入的用于分析DNA加合物的³²P后标记技术,长期以来一直是体内研究的首选方法,因为它具有高灵敏度,只需<10μg DNA就能检测出10¹⁰个正常碱基中的1个加合物。因此,³²P后标记技术已被用于大量关于DNA加合物形成的人类和动物研究。与所有技术一样,³²P后标记技术确实有几个缺点,包括使用放射性磷、缺乏内标,也许最显著的是它不能为未知加合物的阳性鉴定提供任何结构信息,这一缺点可能会严重阻碍该领域的进展。此后已开发出结构分析方法以实现DNA加合物的阳性鉴定,但直到今天,³²P后标记技术所提供的相同水平的灵敏度和低样品要求仍未被超越。在这篇小型综述中,我们将讨论³²P后标记技术,并记录通过气相色谱、毛细管电泳以及最终液相色谱联用向质谱分析的转变,大约30年后,液相色谱联用才刚刚开始接近³²P后标记技术的灵敏度和低样品要求。本文重点关注大分子致癌物 - DNA加合物的检测,未提及氧化损伤或小分子烷基化剂。这是因为³²P后标记测定法与大分子DNA加合物最兼容。这也将使我们能够更全面地关注自1990年以来一直特别感兴趣的一个主题。