I would like to express my concerns regarding a paper that has been published in Nature Communications (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-55845-7). Some of the paper's experimental methods and data have proven to be unreliable, which is a matter of concern. I am currently investigating the validity of its findings. I would like to request that the authors respond to the following questions:
Fructose is a ketose, so it is difficult to carry out a successful derivatisation reaction with the PMP reagent. However, why does the HPLC chromatogram of the fructose standard appear in Supplementary Figure 4A? Is the successful derivatisation of fructose by the PMP reagent a coincidence? Has the repeatability and reliability of this result been verified? I remain sceptical that fructose can be successfully derivatised by the PMP reagent and consider such a result to be unreliable.
The above represents my personal opinion. Thank you.
While I do not belong to the authors of the publication mentioned, I did PMP derivatisation a long time ago. It also worked for fructose, however, LC-MS data showed that only one PMP moiety is attached to the fructose, not two like for common aldoses. That's also why the hydrophobicity of the derivative differs.
Unfortunately, the results are not published. Also, I haven't checked whether the derivatisation is quantitative or representive.
Well, it always worked, but I just did it a few times and only for qualitative analysis, not quantification.
The first picture from "Revisiting Monosaccharide Analysis – Quantitation of a Comprehensive Set of Monosaccharides using Dynamic Multiple Reaction Monitoring", the paper described " Fructose, the most common ketone monosaccharide, eluted much earlier than its aldehyde isomers at 0.7 min, indicating that the PMP derivative of fructose is much less hydrophobic compared to other labeled monosaccharides." And the second pic from "A multi-glycomic platform for the analysis of food carbohydrates". Two results may indicate that fructose could be derivatized. But the pic you mentioned from Nature Communications is weird. Since the retention time conflicts with other research. I think the Fuc may stand for Fucose instead of fructose. I think it's a typo in the professor. Leung's paper.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Simulators