Cargando…

Mass spectrometric imaging of brain tissue by time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry – How do polyatomic primary beams C(60) (+), Ar(2000) (+), water‐doped Ar(2000) (+) and (H(2)O)(6000) (+) compare?

RATIONALE: To discover the degree to which water‐containing cluster beams increase secondary ion yield and reduce the matrix effect in time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (TOF‐SIMS) imaging of biological tissue. METHODS: The positive SIMS ion yields from model compounds, mouse brain lipid...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berrueta Razo, Irma, Sheraz, Sadia, Henderson, Alex, Lockyer, Nicholas P., Vickerman, John C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26411506
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rcm.7285
_version_ 1782448577991147520
author Berrueta Razo, Irma
Sheraz, Sadia
Henderson, Alex
Lockyer, Nicholas P.
Vickerman, John C.
author_facet Berrueta Razo, Irma
Sheraz, Sadia
Henderson, Alex
Lockyer, Nicholas P.
Vickerman, John C.
author_sort Berrueta Razo, Irma
collection PubMed
description RATIONALE: To discover the degree to which water‐containing cluster beams increase secondary ion yield and reduce the matrix effect in time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (TOF‐SIMS) imaging of biological tissue. METHODS: The positive SIMS ion yields from model compounds, mouse brain lipid extract and mouse brain tissue together with mouse brain images were compared using 20 keV C(60) (+), Ar(2000) (+), water‐doped Ar(2000) (+) and pure (H(2)O)(6000) (+) primary beams. RESULTS: Water‐containing cluster beams where the beam energy per nucleon (E/nucleon) ≈ 0.2 eV are optimum for enhancing ion yields dependent on protonation. Ion yield enhancements over those observed using Ar(2000) (+) lie in the range 10 to >100 using the (H(2)O)(6000) (+) beam, while with water‐doped (H(2)O)Ar(2000) (+) they lie in the 4 to 10 range. The two water‐containing beams appear to be optimum for tissue imaging and show strong evidence of increasing yields from molecules that experience matrix suppression under other primary beams. CONCLUSIONS: The application of water‐containing primary beams is suggested for biological SIMS imaging applications, particularly if the beam energy can be raised to 40 keV or higher to further increase ion yield and enhance spatial resolution to ≤1 µm. © 2015 The Authors. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4989468
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49894682016-09-01 Mass spectrometric imaging of brain tissue by time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry – How do polyatomic primary beams C(60) (+), Ar(2000) (+), water‐doped Ar(2000) (+) and (H(2)O)(6000) (+) compare? Berrueta Razo, Irma Sheraz, Sadia Henderson, Alex Lockyer, Nicholas P. Vickerman, John C. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom Research Articles RATIONALE: To discover the degree to which water‐containing cluster beams increase secondary ion yield and reduce the matrix effect in time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (TOF‐SIMS) imaging of biological tissue. METHODS: The positive SIMS ion yields from model compounds, mouse brain lipid extract and mouse brain tissue together with mouse brain images were compared using 20 keV C(60) (+), Ar(2000) (+), water‐doped Ar(2000) (+) and pure (H(2)O)(6000) (+) primary beams. RESULTS: Water‐containing cluster beams where the beam energy per nucleon (E/nucleon) ≈ 0.2 eV are optimum for enhancing ion yields dependent on protonation. Ion yield enhancements over those observed using Ar(2000) (+) lie in the range 10 to >100 using the (H(2)O)(6000) (+) beam, while with water‐doped (H(2)O)Ar(2000) (+) they lie in the 4 to 10 range. The two water‐containing beams appear to be optimum for tissue imaging and show strong evidence of increasing yields from molecules that experience matrix suppression under other primary beams. CONCLUSIONS: The application of water‐containing primary beams is suggested for biological SIMS imaging applications, particularly if the beam energy can be raised to 40 keV or higher to further increase ion yield and enhance spatial resolution to ≤1 µm. © 2015 The Authors. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-10-30 2015-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4989468/ /pubmed/26411506 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rcm.7285 Text en © 2015 The Authors. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Berrueta Razo, Irma
Sheraz, Sadia
Henderson, Alex
Lockyer, Nicholas P.
Vickerman, John C.
Mass spectrometric imaging of brain tissue by time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry – How do polyatomic primary beams C(60) (+), Ar(2000) (+), water‐doped Ar(2000) (+) and (H(2)O)(6000) (+) compare?
title Mass spectrometric imaging of brain tissue by time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry – How do polyatomic primary beams C(60) (+), Ar(2000) (+), water‐doped Ar(2000) (+) and (H(2)O)(6000) (+) compare?
title_full Mass spectrometric imaging of brain tissue by time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry – How do polyatomic primary beams C(60) (+), Ar(2000) (+), water‐doped Ar(2000) (+) and (H(2)O)(6000) (+) compare?
title_fullStr Mass spectrometric imaging of brain tissue by time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry – How do polyatomic primary beams C(60) (+), Ar(2000) (+), water‐doped Ar(2000) (+) and (H(2)O)(6000) (+) compare?
title_full_unstemmed Mass spectrometric imaging of brain tissue by time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry – How do polyatomic primary beams C(60) (+), Ar(2000) (+), water‐doped Ar(2000) (+) and (H(2)O)(6000) (+) compare?
title_short Mass spectrometric imaging of brain tissue by time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry – How do polyatomic primary beams C(60) (+), Ar(2000) (+), water‐doped Ar(2000) (+) and (H(2)O)(6000) (+) compare?
title_sort mass spectrometric imaging of brain tissue by time‐of‐flight secondary ion mass spectrometry – how do polyatomic primary beams c(60) (+), ar(2000) (+), water‐doped ar(2000) (+) and (h(2)o)(6000) (+) compare?
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26411506
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rcm.7285
work_keys_str_mv AT berruetarazoirma massspectrometricimagingofbraintissuebytimeofflightsecondaryionmassspectrometryhowdopolyatomicprimarybeamsc60ar2000waterdopedar2000andh2o6000compare
AT sherazsadia massspectrometricimagingofbraintissuebytimeofflightsecondaryionmassspectrometryhowdopolyatomicprimarybeamsc60ar2000waterdopedar2000andh2o6000compare
AT hendersonalex massspectrometricimagingofbraintissuebytimeofflightsecondaryionmassspectrometryhowdopolyatomicprimarybeamsc60ar2000waterdopedar2000andh2o6000compare
AT lockyernicholasp massspectrometricimagingofbraintissuebytimeofflightsecondaryionmassspectrometryhowdopolyatomicprimarybeamsc60ar2000waterdopedar2000andh2o6000compare
AT vickermanjohnc massspectrometricimagingofbraintissuebytimeofflightsecondaryionmassspectrometryhowdopolyatomicprimarybeamsc60ar2000waterdopedar2000andh2o6000compare