4.4 Article

Gallium metal affinity capture tandem mass spectrometry for the selective detection of phosphopeptides in complex mixtures

期刊

JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 1072-1080

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jms.1387

关键词

metal affinity capture; phosphopeptides; proteomics; collision-induced dissociation; tandem mass spectrometry; gallium metal complexes

资金

  1. NIH [DK67869]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metal affinity capture tandem mass spectrometry (MAC-MSMS) is evaluated in a comparative study of a lysine-derived nitrilotriacetic acid (N(alpha), N(alpha)-bis-(carboxymethyl)Lysine, LysNTA) and an aspartic-acid-related iminodiacetic acid (N-(4-aminobutyl)aspartic acid, AspIDA) as selective phosphopeptide detection reagents. Both LysNTA and AspIDA spontaneously form ternary complexes with Ga(III) and phosphorylated amino acids and phosphopeptides upon mixing in solution. Collision-induced dissociation of positive complex ions produced by electrospray produces common fragments (LysNTA + H)(+) or (AspIDA + H)(+) at m/z 263 and 205, respectively. MSMS precursor scans using these fragments as reporter ions allow one to selectively detect multiple charge states of phosphopeptides in mixtures. It follows from this comparative study that LysNTA is superior to AspIDA in detecting phosphopeptides, possibly because of the higher coordination number and greater stability constant for Ga(III) - phosphopeptide complexation of the former reagent. In a continuing development of MAC-MSMS for proteomics applications, we demonstrate its utility in a post-column reaction format. Using a simple post-column-reaction 'T' and syringe pump to deliver our chelating reagents, alpha-casein tryptic phosphopeptides can be selectively analyzed from a solution containing a twofold molar excess of bovine serum albumin. The MAC-MSMS method is shown to be superior to the commonly used neutral loss scan for the common loss of phosphoric acid. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据