| Literature DB >> 32256950 |
Anna Perrone1, Antonio Giovino2, Jubina Benny3, Federico Martinelli4.
Abstract
The advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are organic molecules formed in any living organisms with a great variety of structural and functional properties. They are considered organic markers of the glycation process. Due to their great heterogeneity, there is no specific test for their operational measurement. In this review, we have updated the most common chromatographic, colorimetric, spectroscopic, mass spectrometric, and serological methods, typically used for the determination of AGEs in biological samples. We have described their signaling and signal transduction mechanisms and cell epigenetic effects. Although mass spectrometric analysis is not widespread in the detection of AGEs at the clinical level, this technique is highly promising for the early diagnosis and therapeutics of diseases caused by AGEs. Protocols are available for high-resolution mass spectrometry of glycated proteins although they are characterized by complex machine management. Simpler procedures are available although much less precise than mass spectrometry. Among them, immunochemical tests are very common since they are able to detect AGEs in a simple and immediate way. In these years, new methodologies have been developed using an in vivo novel and noninvasive spectroscopic methods. These methods are based on the measurement of autofluorescence of AGEs. Another method consists of detecting AGEs in the human skin to detect chronic exposure, without the inconvenience of invasive methods. The aim of this review is to compare the different approaches of measuring AGEs at a clinical perspective due to their strict association with oxidative stress and inflammation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32256950 PMCID: PMC7104326 DOI: 10.1155/2020/3818196
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Figure 1Examples of fructosyl-lysine.
Figure 2Examples of fluorescent cross-linked AGEs.
Figure 3Examples of nonfluorescent cross-linked AGEs.
Figure 4Examples of nonfluorescent non-cross-linked AGEs.
Figure 5Example of fluorescent non-cross-linked AGEs.
Figure 6Schematic representation of AGEs' formation and their biological effects.
Figure 7Biochemical formation of AGEs, their signaling, and molecular signal transduction that lead to pathological effects.
Methods for measuring AGEs in the human samples. The advantages and disadvantages of various assessment methods.
| Methods | Marker | Compartment | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fluorimetric method: | Fluorescent AGEs (pentosidine) | Serum, urine, saliva | (i) Simple | (i) No detection of nonfluorescent AGEs |
| Autofluorescence spectroscopy: | Fluorescent AGEs (pentosidine) and other fluorescent AGEs |
| (i) Noninvasive, simple, rapid method | (i) Major contribution in fluorescence comes from fluorescent AGEs |
| HPLC | AGEs, pentosidine, CML, CEL, MG | Plasma, tissue | (i) A bit invasive | (i) More costly in time and efforts |
| Gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) | CML, CEL, etc. | Urine | (i) Sophisticated technique | (i) More expensive |
| LC-MS/MS | Nonvolatile compounds (e.g., CML, CEL, and MG) | Plasma, urine | (i) No derivatization step is required | (i) More expensive |
| UHPLC | AGEs, pentosidine, CML, CEL, MG | Plasma, tissue | (i) Rapid method | (i) More expensive |
| ELISA | AGEs, pentosidine, CML, CEL, etc. | Serum, urine, tissue | (i) A bit invasive | (i) Lack of enough antibody specificity |
| Western blotting | Antibodies against different molecules | Any tissues | (i) Economic | (i) Complex procedure |