4.7 Article

Improving SRM Assay Development: A Global Comparison between Triple Quadrupole, Ion Trap, and Higher Energy CID Peptide Fragmentation Spectra

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 4334-4341

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr200156b

关键词

ion trap; CID; HCD; triple quadrupole; selected reaction monitoring; spectral correlation

资金

  1. European Union [262067]
  2. CTMM, the Center for Translational Molecular Medicine [01C-102]
  3. Netherlands Heart Foundation
  4. Netherlands Proteomics Centre
  5. Centre for Biomedical Genetics
  6. Netherlands Genomics Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In proteomics, selected reaction monitoring (SRM) is rapidly gaining importance for targeted protein quantification. The triple quadrupole mass analyzers used in SRM assays allow for levels of specificity and sensitivity hard to accomplish by more standard shotgun proteomics experiments. Often, an SRM assay is built by in silica prediction of transitions and/or extraction of peptide precursor and fragment ions from a spectral library. Spectral libraries are typically generated from nonideal ion trap based shotgun proteomics experiments or synthetic peptide libraries, consuming considerable time and effort. Here, we investigate the usability of beam type CID (or higher energy CID (HCD)) peptide fragmentation spectra, as acquired using an Orbitrap Velos, to facilitate SRM assay development. Therefore, peptide fragmentation spectra, obtained by ion-trap CID, triple-quadrupole CM (QqQ-CID) and Orbitrap HCD, originating from digested cellular lysates, were compared. Spectral comparison and a dedicated correlation algorithm indicated significantly higher similarity between QqQ-CID and HCD fragmentation spectra than between QqQ-CID and ion trap-CID spectra. SRM transitions generated using a constructed HCD spectral library increased SRM assay sensitivity up to 2-fold, when compared to the use of a library created from more conventionally used ion trap-CID spectra, showing that HCD spectra can assist SRM assay development.

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

4.7
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