ArticleJournal of chromatographic science2014
Performance comparisons of nano-LC systems, electrospray sources and LC-MS-MS platforms.
Article in Journal of chromatographic science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gradient-Elution Nanoflow Liquid Chromatography Without a Binary Pump: Smoothed Step Gradients Enable Reproducible, Sensitive, and Low-Cost Separations for Single-Cell Proteomics.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2024Article
- Ultrasensitive quantification of trace amines based onJournal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2023Article
- Peptidomic Approach for the Identification of Peptides with Potential Antioxidant and Anti-Hyperthensive Effects Derived From Asparagus By-Products.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- A rapid methods development workflow for high-throughput quantitative proteomic applications.PloS one · 2019Article
- Evidence of histidine and aspartic acid phosphorylation in human prostate cancer cells.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Selecting a suitable nano-liquid chromatography system (LC), ionization source and mass spectrometer for LC-tandem mass spectrometry (MS-MS) studies is complicated by numerous competing technologies. This study compares four popular nano-LC systems, four ionization sources and three MS facilities that use completely different LC-MS-MS systems. Statistically significant differences in LC performance were identified with similarly performing Proxeon, Waters and Eksigent nanoLC-Ultra systems [retention time routinely at 0.7-0.9% relative standard deviation (RSD)], and all outperformed the Eksigent nanoLC-2D (RSD ∼2%). In addition, compatibility issues were identified between the Bruker HCT ion trap mass spectrometer and both the Eksigent nanoLC-2D and the Bruker nanoelectrospray source. The electrospray source itself had an unexpected and striking effect on chromatographic reproducibility on the Bruker HCT ion trap. The New Objective nanospray source significantly outperformed the Bruker nanospray source in retention time RSD (1% RSD versus 14% RSD, respectively); and the Bruker nebulized nanospray source outperformed both of these traditional, non-nebulized sources (0.5% RSD in retention time). Finally, to provide useful benchmarks for overall proteomics sensitivity, different LC-MS-MS platforms were compared by analyzing a range of concentrations of tryptic digests of bovine serum albumin at three MS facilities. The results indicate that similar sensitivity can be realized with a Bruker HCT-Ultra ion trap, a Thermo LTQ-Velos Linear ion trap and a Thermo LTQ-Orbitrap XL-ETD.
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.