4.8 Article

Tyrosine-EDC Conjugation, an Undesirable Side Effect of the EDC-Catalyzed Carboxyl Labeling Approach

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 93, 期 2, 页码 697-703

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c03487

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31870822]
  2. Research Fund of the State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Fudan University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The carbodiimide-catalyzed amidation can lead to a +155 Da side modification on tyrosine residues, significantly impacting the identification of tyrosine-containing peptides. Consideration and removal of this side modification can greatly increase the identification rate of tyrosine-containing peptides in proteomic studies.
Carbodiimide-catalyzed carboxyl and amine conjugation (amidation) has been widely used to protect carboxyl groups. N-(3-(Dimethylamino)propyl)-N'-ethylcarbodiimide (EDC) is the most common carbodiimide reagent in protein chemistry due to its high catalytic efficiency in aqueous media. The reaction has also been applied in different proteomic studies including protein terminomics, glycosylation, and interaction. Herein, we report that the EDC-catalyzed amidation could cause a +155 Da side modification on the tyrosine residue and severely hamper the identification of Tyr-containing peptides. We revealed the extremely low identification rate of Tyr-containing peptides in different published studies employing the EDC-catalyzed amidation. We discovered a +155 Da side modification occurring specifically on Tyr and decoded it as the addition of EDC. Consideration of the side modification in a database search enabled the identification of 13 times more Tyr-containing peptides. Furthermore, we successfully developed an efficient method to remove the side modification. Our results also imply that chemical reactions in proteomic studies should be carefully evaluated prior to their wide applications. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD020042.

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

4.8
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