4.1 Article

An improved calibration method for the matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-Fourier transform ion cyclotron resononance analysis of N-15-metabolically-labeled proteome digests using a mass difference approach

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 269-277

出版社

IM PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.1255/ejms.1186

关键词

proteomics; metabolic labeling; calibration; Fourier transform mass spectrometry; accurate mass measurement

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CHE-1058913]
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [R01RR019767] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High mass measurement accuracy of peptides in enzymatic digests is critical for confident protein identification and characterization in proteomics research. Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FT-ICR-MS) can provide low or sub-ppm mass accuracy and ultrahigh resolving power. While for ESI-FT-ICR-MS, the mass accuracy is generally 1 ppm or better, with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI)-FT-ICR-MS, the mass errors can vary from sub-ppm with internal calibration to over 100 ppm with conventional external calibration. A novel calibration method for N-15-metabolically labeled peptides from a batch digest of a proteome is described which corrects for space charge induced frequency shifts in FT-ICR spectra without using an internal calibrant. This strategy utilizes the information from the mass difference between the N-14/N-15 peptide peak pairs to correct for space charge induced mass shifts after data collection. A procedure for performing the mass correction has been written into a computer program and has been successfully applied to high-performance liquid chromatography-MALDI-FT-ICR-MS measurement of N-15-metabolic labeled proteomes. We have achieved an average measured mass error of 1.0 ppm and a standard deviation of 3.5 ppm for 900 peptides from 68 MALDI-FT-ICR mass spectra of the proteolytic digest of a proteome from Methanococcus maripaludis.

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

4.1
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