4.7 Review

A review on the interrogation of peptide-metal interactions using electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 686, 期 1-2, 页码 19-39

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2010.11.050

关键词

Peptide; Metal; Electrospray ionization; Mass spectrometry; Noncovalent interaction

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CHE-0821969]
  2. University of Texas at Arlington

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the years, protein interactions have been studied by many techniques to obtain a wide breadth of information. The large size and complexity of the macromolecules have caused difficulties for studying them by some techniques. In some cases, peptides, smaller and less complex biomolecules, have been found to be suitable models to mimic the interactions of entire proteins. The study of peptide-metal interaction, in particular, has proven to be fruitful to researchers across the science fields. One technique in particular, electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (ESI-MS), has been shown to provide a great deal of information to these studies. The speed, sensitivity, and selectivity of MS, along with the information that can be interpreted from MS-based experiments, has driven this technique to the forefront for understanding the nature of peptide-metal complexes. MS has allowed researchers to identify the stoichiometry of peptide-metal complexes or even mixtures of complexes. The specific amino acids in which the metal cations are bound and the degree of association in these complexes can also be determined by MS experiments. The following review discusses the ESI process and how it is ideal for studying noncovalent interactions between peptides and metals. An investigation of the qualitative and quantitative information that has been determined by ESI-MS follows for readers to realize the versatility of this technique and the diversity of information that can be obtained by a variety of related methods. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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