4.7 Article

Increasing the Separation Capacity of Intact Histone Proteoforms Chromatography Coupling Online Weak Cation Exchange-HILIC to Reversed Phase LC UVPD-HRMS

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 3791-3800

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.8b00458

关键词

histones; top-down mass spectrometry; online comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatography; ultraviolet photodissociation; post-translational modifications

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research by the NWO Veni grant IPA [722.015.009]
  2. Office of Biological and Environmental Research, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Top-down proteomics is an emerging analytical strategy to characterize combinatorial protein post-translational modifications (PTMs). However, sample complexity and small mass differences between chemically closely related proteoforms often limit the resolution attainable by separations employing a single liquid chromatographic (LC) principle. In particular, for ultramodified proteins like histones, extensive and time-consuming fractionation is needed to achieve deep proteoform coverage. Herein, we present the first online nanoflow comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatography (nLCXLC) platform top-down mass spectrometry analysis of histone proteoforms. The described two-dimensional LC system combines weak cation exchange chromatography under hydrophilic interaction LC conditions (i.e., charge- and hydrophilicity-based separation) with reversed phase liquid chromatography (i.e., hydrophobicity-based separation). The two independent chemical selectivities were run at nanoflows (300 nL/min) and coupled online with high-resolution mass spectrometry employing ultraviolet photodissociation (UVPD-HRMS). The nLCXLC workflow increased the number of intact protein masses observable relative to one-dimensional approaches and allowed characterization of hundreds of proteoforms starting from limited sample quantities (similar to 1.5 mu g).

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