ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2010
Sequence analysis of peptide:oligonucleotide heteroconjugates by electron capture dissociation and electron transfer dissociation.
Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unraveling the RNA modification code with mass spectrometry.Molecular omics · 2020Article
- Imidate-based cross-linkers for structural proteomics: increased charge of protein and peptide ions and CID and ECD fragmentation studies.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2014Article
- Selective detection of peptide-oligonucleotide heteroconjugates utilizing capillary HPLC-ICPMS.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2012Article
- Drug metabolite profiling and identification by high-resolution mass spectrometry.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mass spectrometry analysis of protein-nucleic acid cross-links is challenging due to the dramatically different chemical properties of the two components. Identifying specific sites of attachment between proteins and nucleic acids requires methods that enable sequencing of both the peptide and oligonucleotide component of the heteroconjugate cross-link. While collision-induced dissociation (CID) has previously been used for sequencing such heteroconjugates, CID generates fragmentation along the phosphodiester backbone of the oligonucleotide preferentially. The result is a reduction in peptide fragmentation within the heteroconjugate. In this work, we have examined the effectiveness of electron capture dissociation (ECD) and electron-transfer dissociation (ETD) for sequencing heteroconjugates. Both methods were found to yield preferential fragmentation of the peptide component of a peptide:oligonucleotide heteroconjugate, with minimal differences in sequence coverage between these two electron-induced dissociation methods. Sequence coverage was found to increase with increasing charge state of the heteroconjugate, but decreases with increasing size of the oligonucleotide component. To overcome potential intermolecular interactions between the two components of the heteroconjugate, supplemental activation with ETD was explored. The addition of a supplemental activation step was found to increase peptide sequence coverage over ETD alone, suggesting that electrostatic interactions between the peptide and oligonucleotide components are one limiting factor in sequence coverage by these two approaches. These results show that ECD/ETD methods can be used for the tandem mass spectrometry sequencing of peptide:oligonucleotide heteroconjugates, and these methods are complementary to existing CID methods already used for sequencing of protein-nucleic acid cross-links.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.