4.6 Article

Modular calibrant sets for the structural analysis of nucleic acids by ion mobility spectrometry mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYST
卷 141, 期 13, 页码 4084-4099

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6an00453a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [GM064328]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explored the use of modular nucleic acid (NA) standards to generate calibration curves capable of translating primary ion mobility readouts into corresponding collision cross section (CCS) data. Putative calibrants consisted of single- (ss) and double-stranded (ds) oligo-deoxynucleotides reaching up to similar to 40 kDa in size (i.e., 64 bp) and similar to 5700 angstrom(2) in CCS. To ensure self-consistency among reference CCS values, computational data obtained in house were preferred to any experimental or computational data from disparate sources. Such values were obtained by molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and either the exact hard sphere scattering (EHSS) or the projection superposition approximation (PSA) methods, and then plotted against the corresponding experimental values to generate separate calibration curves. Their performance was evaluated on the basis of their correlation coefficients and ability to provide values that matched the CCS of selected test samples mimicking typical unknowns. The results indicated that the predictive power benefited from the exclusion of higher charged species that were more susceptible to the destabilizing effects of Coulombic repulsion. The results revealed discrepancies between EHSS and PSA data that were ascribable to the different approximations used to describe the ion mobility process. Within the boundaries defined by these approximations and the challenges of modeling NA structure in a solvent-free environment, the calibrant sets enabled the experimental determination of CCS with excellent reproducibility (precision) and error (accuracy), which will support the analysis of progressively larger NA samples of biological significance.

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

4.6
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