4.3 Review

The utility of ETD mass spectrometry in proteomic analysis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2006.10.003

关键词

electron transfer dissociation (ETD) mass spectrometry; labile post translational modification (PTM); phosphorylation; sulfonation; glycosylation; nitrosylation; disulfide bond; proteomics

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM37537, R01 GM037537] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mass spectrometry has played an integral role in the identification of proteins and their post-translational modifications (PTM). However, analysis of some PTMs, such as phosphorylation, sulfonation, and glycosylation, is difficult with collision-activated dissociation (CAD) since the modification is labile and preferentially lost over peptide backbone fragmentation, resulting in little to no peptide sequence information. The presence of multiple basic residues also makes peptides exceptionally difficult to sequence by conventional CAD mass spectrometry. Here we review the utility of electron transfer dissociation (ETD) mass spectrometry for sequence analysis of post-translationally modified and/or highly basic peptides. Phosphorylated, sulfonated, glycosylated, nitrosylated, disulfide bonded, methylated, acetylated, and highly basic peptides have been analyzed by CAD and ETD mass spectrometry. CAD fragmentation typically produced spectra showing limited peptide backbone fragmentation. However, when these peptides were fragmented using ETD, peptide backbone fragmentation produced a complete or almost complete series of ions and thus extensive peptide sequence information. In addition, labile PTMs remained intact. These examples illustrate the utility of ETD as an advantageous tool in proteomic research by readily identifying peptides resistant to analysis by CAD. A further benefit is the ability to analyze larger, non-tryptic peptides, allowing for the detection of multiple PTMs within the context of one another. (c) 2006 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

4.3
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