4.3 Article

Optimizing macromolecular tandem mass spectrometry of large non-covalent complexes using heavy collision gases

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 268, 期 2-3, 页码 198-206

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijms.2007.06.012

关键词

tandem mass spectrometry; protein complexes; collissional cooling; xenon; GroEL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated and optimized conditions for tandem mass spectrometry on macromolecular protein complexes, using a modified Q-ToF instrument varying the gas pressure inside the hexapole collision cell, and studied the influence of using different collision gases, e.g. argon, krypton and xenon. These variations affected ion transmission through the instrument and dissociation efficiency In particular the high mass fragment ions were generated more readily and transmitted more efficiently using the heavier xenon as collision gas. We used the 800 kDa GroEL 14-mer chaperone machinery for these initial studies. Applying the optimized tandem mass spectrometry conditions, i.e. relatively high pressures and xenon as collision gas, we studied in detail the influence the binding of one and two gp5 substrate proteins had on the gas-phase dissociation of the chaperonin complex constructing break-down diagrams. We observed that the binding of substrate polypeptides had a significant effect on the gas-phase stability of the chaperonin complex, with the complex containing one and two substrate molecules being less susceptible towards dissociation than the substrate free GroEL. Interestingly, the GroEL:gp5 and GroEL:(gp5)(2) Complexes dissociate exclusively via the elimination of GroEL monomeric ions, indicating that both gp5 substrates are likely encapsulated inside the two cavities of, respectively, the cis and trans ring of the GroEL. From all data acquired, we conclude that the heavier xenon is the preferred collision gas for tandem mass spectrometry on very large macromolecular complexes. (C) 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.3
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