4.8 Article

Peptide Quantification Using 8-Plex Isobaric Tags and Electron Transfer Dissociation Tandem Mass Spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 81, 期 4, 页码 1693-1698

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac8019202

关键词

-

资金

  1. Thermo Scientific
  2. Beckman Foundation
  3. American Society of Mass Spectrometry
  4. Eli Lilly
  5. National Science Foundation [0701846, 0747990]
  6. NIH [1R01GM080148, 1P01GM081629, 5T32HG002760, 5T32GM08349]
  7. Leukaemia Research Fund, U.K.
  8. Division Of Chemistry
  9. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0747990] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Isobaric tags for absolute and relative quantitation (iTRAQ) allow for simultaneous relative quantification of peptides from up to eight different samples. Typically peptides labeled with 8-plex iTRAQ tags are pooled and fragmented using beam-type collision activated dissociation (CAD) which, in addition to cleaving the peptide backbone bonds, cleaves the tag to produce reporter ions. The relative intensities of the reporters are directly proportional to the relative abundances of each peptide in the solution phase. Recently, studies using the 4-plex iTRAQ tagging reagent demonstrated that electron transfer dissociation (EM) of 4-plex iTRAQ labeled peptides cleaves at the N-C alpha bond in the tag and allows for up to three channels of quantification. In this paper we investigate the ETD fragmentation patterns of peptides labeled with 8-plex iTRAQ tags. We demonstrate that upon ETD, peptides labeled with 8-plex iTRAQ tags fragment to produce unique reporter ions that allow for five channels of quantification. ETD-MS/MS of these labeled peptides also produces a peak at 322 m/z which, upon resonant excitation (CAD), gives rise to all eight iTRAQ reporter ions and allows for eight channels of quantification. Comparison of this method to beam-type CAD quantification shows a good correlation (y = 0.91x + 0.01, R-2 = 0.9383).

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