Background Image
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  504 / 658 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 504 / 658 Next Page
Page Background

Figure 2 shows the summed SRM chromatograms

for the four targeted rhEPO peptides and the labeled

analogues. The labeled peptide can be used to confirm the

correct elution time as well as the ion ratio provided more

than one transition was used to monitor each peptide.

A level of 500 amol on column was used to test the

detection capabilities of the approach used, which would

equate to a concentration of ca. 1.7 ng/mL. Note that the

responses of T

4

, T

11

, T

17

markers were greater than 10000

counts, indicating lower levels of detection to be about

10x lower (or 0.2 ng/mL) without requiring nanoliter flow

rates, which simplifies the experiment and increases the

robustness of the method.

In addition to establishing the correct retention times

for targeted peptides, the stable-isotope labeled peptides

can be used for correct ion ratio determination as an

additional means of verification. Figure 3 shows

comparative full-scan product ion spectra for the (3A)

unlabeled and (3B) labeled T

11

peptide. Note the y-series

detected for each, providing sequencing information and

site determination for the stable isotope labeled residue

such as the a

2

/b

2

fragments as well as the y

6

for the

unlabeled peptide. The two product ions used for

detecting the T

11

peptide were the y

4

and y

5

ions. The

calculated abundance ratios for the unlabeled and labeled

peptides were ca. 25%. The insets to the right of Figure 3

show the measured ion abundance for each SRM transi-

tion at 500 amol level. The calculated ratio is within

experimental error to be used as an additional means

of confirmation for the targeted peptide elution.

Figure 4 shows the quantification curve calculated

for the controlled rhEPO spiking of horse plasma. The

values show excellent agreement between theoretical and

experimentally determined levels based on the integrated

peak area ratios between the unlabeled and labeled

targeted rhEPO peptides. The %CVs for each was less

than 20% at 500 amol level indicating excellent

capabilities to quantify the presence of rhEPO in plasma.

While a positive confirmation would only require one

diagnostic peptide to be present, this method yields four

proteotypic peptides that could be used unequivocally

to increase the confidence in a positive determination.

The second sample set was used to test the entire

workflow. A female horse (500 kg) was administered

rhEPO intravenously using 8000 IU (0.08 mg/kg) for four

days. Following the injection on the fourth day, blood was

withdrawn at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 24, 48, and 72

hour intervals. Samples for each time point were processed

using the method outlined previously, reducing complexity

of the resulting protein digest mixture. The protocols of

most horse racing commissions require the saliva, urine,

and/or blood sample to be taken from the winning horse

following completion of a race. The 72 hour time window

represents a possible maximum duration between the final

doping and racing while maintaining a pharmacological

effect following administration of rhEPO/DPO. The 8000

IU dose is also an estimate of the dose required to induce

the desired biological effects of increasing oxygen carrying

capacity for equine athletes. The proposed protocol must

enable a reduction of sample loss through the number of

sample purification, filtering, reconstitution, and digestion

steps prior to mass spectral analysis. Figure 5 shows the

summed SRM chromatograms for the four targeted

rhEPO peptides with their stable-isotope labeled internal

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Time (min)

0

50

100

0

50

100

0

50

100

0

50

100

RelativeAbundance

0

50

100

0

50

100

1.60

8.51

2.39

9.94

50.21

22.4

7.19

4.96

13.13

9.60

10.28

8.45

11.36 13.42

1.14

5.59

4.73

2.90

6.84

10.06

10.45 12.06

1.32

13.78

5.82 6.84

3.88

2.91

9.66

11.20

12.51

10.85

13.42

6.84

1.32

5.59

3.88

2.91

9.60

12.06

12.34

10.22

3.20

9.31

6.61

1.31

5.59

12.63

12.80

11.83

9.89

4.91

1.77 2.91

5.82 7.25 8.91

T10 AVSGLR

T4 YLLEAK

T14 TITADTFR

T17 VYSNFLR

T11 SLTTLLR

T6 YNFYAWK

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Time (min)

0

50

100

0

50

100

0

50

100

0

50

100

0

50

100

0

50

100

1.43

2.05 3.19 4.78 5.40 6.88 8.82

12.18

9.67

12.92

9.50

10.07

5.63

9.22

12.86

2.62 4.61

6.77

10.08

10.42

8.88

12.70

2.974.05 5.98

1.83

7.79

11.33

11.73 13.15

5.92

10.19

4.27

3.02

1.71

7.79

12.07

12.30

11.79

7.45

0.97 2.96

5.41

9.11

3.99

12.64

13.04

11.96

10.02

4.56

7.79

3.19

5.98

1.72

T10 AVSGLR

T4 YLLEAK

T14 TITADTFR

T17 VYSNFLR

T11 SLTTLLR

T6 YNFYAWK

1A)

Figure 1: SRM chromatographic traces for each of the targeted peptides for

1A) DPO and 1B) rhEPO enzymatic digest using identical experimental method.

1B)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Time (min)

Relative Abundance

0

100

0

100

0

100

0

100

0

100

0

100

0

100

0

100

RT: 7.18

MA: 13527

RT: 7.10

MA: 2368799

RT: 9.27

MA: 10653

RT: 9.26

MA: 2331810

RT: 8.68

MA: 2926

RT: 8.71

MA: 651563

RT: 9.68

MA: 1205

RT: 9.59

MA: 429655

NL: 2.44E3

NL: 2.45E5

NL: 2.64E3

NL: 4.25E5

NL: 6.59E2

NL: 1.22E5

NL: 3.66E2

NL: 8.75E4

YLLEAK

Y(*L)LEAK

SLTTLLR

S(*L)TTLLR

VYSNFLR

VYSN(*F)LR

VYNFAWK

VYN(*F)AWK

T4

T11

T17

T6

Figure 2: SRM responses for four targeted rhEPO peptides and the

corresponding stable isotope labeled peptide. The measured response is for

a total of 500 amol on column for the unlabeled rhEPO and 100 fmol for the

labeled rhEPO peptides.

Legend: Protein Sequences

rhEPO

DPO

eEPO

T4

T5

T10

T11

T14

T17

APPRLICDSR VLERYLLEAK EAENI TTGCA EHCSLNEN IT VPDTKVNFYA

APPRLICDSR VLERYLLEAK EAENI TTGCN ETCSLNEN IT VPDTKVNFYA

**PPRLICDSR VLERYILEAR EAENVTMGCA EGCSFGENVT VPDTKVNFYS

WKRMEVGQQA VEVWQGLALL SEAVLRGQAL LVNSSQPWEP LQLHVDKAVS

WKRMEVGQQA VEVQQGLALL SEAVLRGQAL LVNSSQVNET LQLHVDKAVS

WKRMEVGQQA VEVWQGLALL SEAITQGQAL LANSSQPSET LRLGVDKAVS

GLRSLTTLLR ALGAQKEAIS PPDAASAAPL RTITADTFRK LFRVYSNFLR GKLKLYTGEA

GLRSLTTLLR ALGAQKEAIS PPDAASAAPL RTITADTFRK LFRVYSNFLR GKLKLYTGEA

SLRSLTSLLR ALGAQKEAIS PPDAASAAPL RTFAVDTLCK LFR IYSNFLR GKLKLYTGEA

CRTGD

CRTGD

CRR

Scheme 1. Comparison of protein sequences for rhEPO, DPO, and equine

EPO. The dashed lines represent sites of enzymatic cleavages and the red

boxes highlight non-conserved sequence sites between rhEPO/DPO and

equine EPO. The targeted peptides are marked with a gold box.