4.5 Article

Electron-Induced Dissociation of Peptides in a Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer Retrofitted with an Electromagnetostatic Cell

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13361-014-1074-x

关键词

Electron-induced dissociation (EID); Peptides; Radio-frequency-free electromagnetostatic (EMS) cell

资金

  1. NSF [CHE-0924027]
  2. Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute [09-31, 3.5]
  3. NIH NCRR [R01RR026275]
  4. NIH NIEHS (Environmental Health Sciences Center) [ES000210]
  5. Agilent Technologies [2443]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dissociation of peptides induced by interaction with (free) electrons (electron-induced dissociation, EID) at electron energies ranging from near 0 to > 30 eV was carried out using a radio-frequency-free electromagnetostatic (EMS) cell retrofitted into a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. The product-ion mass spectra exhibited EID originating from electronically excited even-electron precursor ions, reduced radical cations formed by capture of low-energy electrons, and oxidized radical cations produced by interaction with high-energy electrons. The spectra demonstrate, within the limits of the triple quadrupole's resolving power, that high-energy EID product-ion spectra produced with an EMS cell exhibit essentially the same qualitative structural information, i.e., amino acid side-chain (SC) losses and backbone cleavages, as observed in high-energy EID spectra produced with a Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance (FT-ICR) mass spectrometer. The levels of fragmentation efficiency evident in the product-ion spectra recorded in this study, as was the case for those recorded in earlier studies with FT ICR mass spectrometers, is currently at the margin of analytical utility. Given that this shortcoming can be remedied, EMS cells incorporated into QqQ or QqTOF mass spectrometers could make tandem high-energy EID mass spectrometry more widely accessible for analysis of peptides, small singly charged molecules, pharmaceuticals, and clinical samples.

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

4.5
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