4.8 Article

Evaluating Linear Ion Trap for MS3-Based Multiplexed Single-Cell Proteomics

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 95, 期 3, 页码 1888-1898

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.2c03739

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To overcome the issue of ratio compression in isobaric labeling-based multiplexed single-cell proteomics, we developed an improved MS3-based method using a linear ion trap. This method increased proteome coverage for single-cell-level peptides and was applied to study immune activation in single macrophages.
There is a growing demand to develop high-throughput and high-sensitivity mass spectrometry methods for single-cell proteomics. The commonly used isobaric labeling-based multiplexed single-cell proteomics approach suffers from distorted protein quantification due to co-isolated interfering ions during MS/MS fragmentation, also known as ratio compression. We reasoned that the use of MS3-based quantification could mitigate ratio compression and provide better quantification. However, previous studies indicated reduced proteome coverages in the MS3 method, likely due to long duty cycle time and ion losses during multilevel ion selection and fragmentation. Herein, we described an improved MS acquisition method for MS3-based single-cell proteomics by employing a linear ion trap to measure reporter ions. We demonstrated that linear ion trap can increase the proteome coverages for single-cell-level peptides with even higher gain obtained via the MS3 method. The optimized real-time search MS3 method was further applied to study the immune activation of single macrophages. Among a total of 126 single cells studied, over 1200 and 1000 proteins were quantifiable when at least 50 and 75% nonmissing data were required, respectively. Our evaluation also revealed several limitations of the low-resolution ion trap detector for multiplexed single-cell proteomics and suggested experimental solutions to minimize their impacts on single-cell analysis.

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