Next Generation Peptide Mapping with Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography - UPLC achieves better resolution, speed, and sensitivity than HPLC by using 1.7 m particles and optimized


Next Generation Peptide Mapping with Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography
UPLC achieves better resolution, speed, and sensitivity than HPLC by using 1.7 m particles and optimized instrumentation.

BioPharm International
Volume 19, Issue 1

This article demonstrates the application of UPLC to peptide mapping in a series of experiments. Most of the instruments and chemicals were from Waters with three exceptions: acetonitrile (Optima Grade) was from Fisher, TFA was from Pierce, and formic acid was from EMD. Exact conditions are listed in Table 1.

The ACQUITY C18 chemistry is based on a bridged ethyl hybrid base particle, specifically designed for operation at higher pressure. It has an average pore diameter of 130 a pore volume of 0.7 mL/g, and a surface area of 185 m2/g. Its diameter is 1.7 μm.


Figure 1. Van Deemter Plot for 1,500 Da peptide. The equation has the form, H = A + (B/u) + Cu, where H = Height equivalent of a theoretical plate (cm), u = average linear velocity (cm/s), and A, B, C are constants.
The chromatographic benefits of UPLC are largely derived from reduced band-broadening that is, in turn, a consequence of reduced diffusion distances in small particles. This process is quantitatively described in the van Deemter equation that relates height equivalent of a theoretical plate (H) to linear velocity. Figure 1 graphs this relationship for a peptide of 1,500 Da on 3.5 μm and on 1.7 μm packings. The minimum in the curve corresponds to the maximum efficiency, and greatest resolving power, for each particle size.

At linear velocities or flow rates above and below the optimum, resolving power declines. The smaller particles have higher resolving power at a higher linear velocity. In Figure 1, the 3.5 μm particles have a minimum plate height of 8.11 μm at a linear velocity of 0.17 mm/s. In contrast, a minimum plate height of 3.94 μm is observed at 0.33 mm/s with the 1.77 μm particles. In practical terms, these suggest that the small particles used in UPLC could increase the resolving power in a peptide mapping experiment, and should simultaneously reduce the separation time because the optimum is achieved at a higher linear velocity.

For the 3.5 μm particle, the optimum linear velocity corresponds to a flow rate of about 24 μL/min on a 2.1 mm i.d. column or about 5.5 μL/min on a 1 mm column. In practice, such flow rates would never be used for a peptide map because the separation times would be far too long. It is common practice to operate at higher flow rates, typically about 250 μL/min and 60 μL/min on 2.1 and 1 mm columns, respectively. A linear velocity of about 1.7 mm/s corresponds to a plate height of about 21 μm. This 2.6-fold loss of resolution with a 10-fold increase in separation speed becomes an accepted compromise in the analytical community. For 1.7 μm particles, however, the plate height at 250 μL/min only increases to 6.45 μm, a 1.6-fold sacrifice from the optimum.

This analysis suggests several ways to approach improving peptide maps using UPLC. First, columns with the smaller particles (1.7 μm) will improve both resolution and sensitivity by reducing diffusion-related band broadening. Second, reducing the plate height is consistent with obtaining the same or better resolution with shorter columns and higher flow rates. Third, the compromise between separation time and resolution is more favorable with the smaller particles.


blog comments powered by Disqus



Bristol-Myers Squibb and Five Prime Therapeutics Collaborate on Development of Immunomodulator
November 26, 2014
Merck Enters into Licensing Agreement with NewLink for Investigational Ebola Vaccine
November 25, 2014
FDA Extends Review of Novartis' Investigational Compound for Multiple Myeloma
November 25, 2014
AstraZeneca Expands Biologics Manufacturing in Maryland
November 25, 2014
GSK Leads Big Pharma in Making Its Medicines Accessible
November 24, 2014
Author Guidelines
Source: BioPharm International,
Click here