4.5 Review

Catch me if you can: Mass spectrometry-based phosphoproteomics and quantification strategies

期刊

PROTEOMICS
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 554-570

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201000489

关键词

Enrichment; MS; Phosphorylation; Quantification; Quantitative phosphoproteomics; Technology

资金

  1. 'Ministerium fur Innovation, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen'
  2. 'Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung' (SARA) [31P5800]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phosphorylation of proteins is one of the most prominent PTMs and for instance a key regulator of signal transduction. In order to improve our understanding of cellular phosphorylation events, considerable effort has been devoted to improving the analysis of phosphorylation by MS-based proteomics. Different enrichment strategies for phosphorylated peptides/proteins, such as immunoaffinity chromatography (IMAC) or titanium dioxide, have been established and constantly optimized for subsequent MS analysis. Concurrently, specific MS techniques were developed for more confident identification and phosphorylation site localization. In addition, more attention is paid to the LC-MS instrumentation to avoid premature loss of phosphorylated peptides within the analytical system. Despite major advances in all of these fields, the analysis of phosphopeptides still remains far from being routine in proteomics. However, to reveal cellular regulation by phosphorylation events, not only qualitative information about the phosphorylation status of proteins but also, in particular, quantitative information about distinct changes in phosphorylation patterns upon specific stimulation is mandatory. Thus, yielded insights are of outstanding importance for the emerging field of systems biology. In this review, we will give an insight into the historical development of phosphoproteome analysis and discuss its recent progress particularly regarding phosphopeptide quantification and assessment of phosphorylation stoichiometry.

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

4.5
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