Comparison of bottom-up protein identification methods
Magnus Palmblad, Laurence V. Bindschedler, Trevor Gibson, Rainer Cramer
Abstract
Magnus Palmblad, Laurence V. Bindschedler, Trevor Gibson, Rainer Cramer
Abstract
With the rapid development of proteomics, a number of different methods appeared for the basic task of protein identification. We made a simple comparison between a common liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) workflow using an ion trap mass spectrometer and a combined LC-MS and LC-MS/MS method using Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance (FTICR) mass spectrometry and accurate peptide masses. \nTo compare the two methods for protein identification, we grew and extracted proteins from E. coli using established protocols. Cystines were reduced and alkylated, and proteins digested by trypsin. The resulting peptide mixtures were separated by reversed-phase liquid chromatography using a 4 h gradient from 0 to 50% acetonitrile over a C18 reversed-phase column. The LC separation was coupled on-line to either a Bruker Esquire HCT ion trap or a Bruker 7 tesla APEX-Qe Qh-FTICR hybrid mass spectrometer. \nData-dependent Qh-FTICR-MS/MS spectra were acquired using the quadrupole mass filter and collisionally induced dissociation into the external hexapole trap. Proteins were in both schemes identified by Mascot MS/MS ion searches and the peptides identified from these proteins in the FTICR MS/MS data were used for automatic internal calibration of the FTICR-MS data, together with ambient polydimethylcyclosiloxane ions.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
With the rapid development of proteomics, a number of different methods appeared for the basic task of protein identification. We made a simple comparison between a common liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) workflow using an ion trap mass spectrometer and a combined LC-MS and LC-MS/MS method using Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance (FTICR) mass spectrometry and accurate peptide masses. \nTo compare the two methods for protein identification, we grew and extracted proteins from E. coli using established protocols. Cystines were reduced and alkylated, and proteins digested by trypsin. The resulting peptide mixtures were separated by reversed-phase liquid chromatography using a 4 h gradient from 0 to 50% acetonitrile over a C18 reversed-phase column. The LC separation was coupled on-line to either a Bruker Esquire HCT ion trap or a Bruker 7 tesla APEX-Qe Qh-FTICR hybrid mass spectrometer. \nData-dependent Qh-FTICR-MS/MS spectra were acquired using the quadrupole mass filter and collisionally induced dissociation into the external hexapole trap. Proteins were in both schemes identified by Mascot MS/MS ion searches and the peptides identified from these proteins in the FTICR MS/MS data were used for automatic internal calibration of the FTICR-MS data, together with ambient polydimethylcyclosiloxane ions.
Key concepts: Top-down proteomics, Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance, Chemistry, Mass spectrometry, Ion trap, Tandem mass spectrometry, Chromatography, Protein mass spectrometry