2006CentAUR (University of Reading)Requires access

Comparison of bottom-up protein identification methods

Magnus Palmblad, Laurence V. Bindschedler, Trevor Gibson, Rainer Cramer

Open publisher page 0 citations

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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.

Key concepts: Top-down proteomics, Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance, Chemistry, Mass spectrometry, Ion trap, Tandem mass spectrometry, Chromatography, Protein mass spectrometry

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of bottom-up protein identification methods — Research Paper | ScholarLens