4.7 Article

Combination of Multistep IMAC Enrichment with High-pH Reverse Phase Separation for In-Depth Phosphoproteomic Profiling

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 4176-4186

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr4005234

关键词

phosphoproteomics; multistep IMAC enrichment; high-pH reverse phase fractionation; SCX fractionation; high pI phosphopeptides

资金

  1. Walther Cancer Foundation
  2. Notre Dame Harper Cancer Research Institute
  3. Department of Defense [USAMRAA W81XWH-12-1-0412]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Typical mass spectrometric phosphoproteome studies are complicated by the need for large amounts of starting material and extensive sample preparation to ensure sufficient phosphopeptide identifications. In this paper, we present a novel strategy to perform optimized multistep IMAC enrichment from whole cell lysates followed by high-pH reverse phase fractionation (multi-IMAC-HLB; HLB means hydrophilic-lipophilic-balanced reversed-phase cartridge). The peptide-to-IMAC ratio was optimized to maximize IMAC performance, while multistep IMAC enrichment enabled improved phosphopeptide acquisition. The addition of the HLB step further fractionates the IMAC enriched phosphopeptides while desalting the samples, which dramatically reduces the sample manipulation time and sample loss compared to other popular strategies. We compared the phosphopeptide identification results of the multi-IMAC-HLB method with 3 mg of starting material to the well-established SCX-IMAC method with IS mg of starting material. We identified 8969 unique phosphopeptides with the multi-IMAC-HLB method, compared to 5519 unique phosphopeptides identified with the SCX-IMAC method, an increase of 62.5%. The increase in the numbers of identified phosphopeptides is due to the increase in the ratio of identified phosphopeptides out of all detected peptides, 70.5% with multi-IMAC-HLB method compared to 32.3% with the SCX-IMAC method. Multi-IMAC-HLB is a robust and efficient method for in-depth phosphoproteomic research.

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