4.7 Review

Peptide Identification by Tandem Mass Spectrometry with Alternate Fragmentation Modes

期刊

MOLECULAR & CELLULAR PROTEOMICS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 550-557

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/mcp.R112.018556

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health from the National Center for Research Resources [1-P41-RR024851]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The high-throughput nature of proteomics mass spectrometry is enabled by a productive combination of data acquisition protocols and the computational tools used to interpret the resulting spectra. One of the key components in mainstream protocols is the generation of tandem mass (MS/MS) spectra by peptide fragmentation using collision induced dissociation, the approach currently used in the large majority of proteomics experiments to routinely identify hundreds to thousands of proteins from single mass spectrometry runs. Complementary to these, alternative peptide fragmentation methods such as electron capture/transfer dissociation and higher-energy collision dissociation have consistently achieved significant improvements in the identification of certain classes of peptides, proteins, and post-translational modifications. Recognizing these advantages, mass spectrometry instruments now conveniently support fine-tuned methods that automatically alternate between peptide fragmentation modes for either different types of peptides or for acquisition of multiple MS/MS spectra from each peptide. But although these developments have the potential to substantially improve peptide identification, their routine application requires corresponding adjustments to the software tools and procedures used for automated downstream processing. This review discusses the computational implications of alternative and alternate modes of MS/MS peptide fragmentation and addresses some practical aspects of using such protocols for identification of peptides and post-translational modifications. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 11: 10.1074/mcp.R112.018556, 550-557, 2012.

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