ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2015
The Competitive influence of Li+, Na+, K+, Ag+, and H+ on the fragmentation of a PEGylated polymeric excipient.
Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Distinct Fragmentation Pathways of Anticancer Drugs Induced by Charge-Carrying Cations in the Gas Phase.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2017Article
- Structural Characterization of Anticancer Drug Paclitaxel and Its Metabolites Using Ion Mobility Mass Spectrometry and Tandem Mass Spectrometry.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The collisionally activated dissociation (CAD) and electron capture dissociation (ECD) of doubly charged tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate (TPGS) have been examined. Li(+), Na(+), K(+), Ag(+), and H(+) were selected in the study, and the competitive influence of each ion was investigated by fragmenting TPGS attached with two different cations, [M + X1 + X2](2+) (X1 and X2 refer to Li(+), Na(+), K(+), Ag(+), H(+)). For metallic adducts, CAD results show that the dissociation of ionic adducts from the precursor is most likely depending on the binding strength, where the affinity of each ion to the TPGS is in the order of Ag(+) ≈ Li(+) ˃ Na(+) ˃ K(+). Introducing more strongly bound adducts increases fragmentation. During ECD, however, the silver cation is lost most easily compared with the other alkali metal ions, but silver also shows a dominant role in producing fragmentations. Moreover, the charge carriers are lost in an order (Ag(+) ˃ Na(+) ˃ K(+) ≥ Li(+) where the loss of Ag is most easily) that appears to correlate with the standard reduction potential of the metallic ions (Ag(+) ˃ Na(+) ˃ K(+) ˃ Li(+)). The ECD results suggest that the reduction potential of the charge carrier could be an important factor influencing the fragmentation, where the ion with a high reduction potential is more effective in capturing electrons, but may also be lost easily before leading to any fragmentation. Finally, a proton has the weakest binding with the TPGS according to the CAD results, and its dissociation in ECD follows the order of the reduction potential (Ag(+) ˃ H(+) ˃ Na(+) ˃ K(+) > Li(+)).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.