ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2018
Comparing the Effects of Additives on Protein Analysis Between Desorption Electrospray (DESI) and Electrospray Ionization (ESI).
Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical Role of Voltage Application Points in "Analog" and "Digital" Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2025Article
- Universal, untargeted detection of bacteria in tissues using metabolomics workflows.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Simple Protein Analysis by Droplet Paper Spray Ionization Mass Spectrometry with Polyolefin Silica-Based Paper.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Native Mass Spectrometry of Iron-Sulfur Proteins.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Spatially resolved analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm proteomes measured by laser ablation sample transfer.PloS one · 2021Article
- Addition of Serine Enhances Protein Analysis by DESI-MS.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2019Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
It is frequently said that DESI-MS follows a similar ionization mechanism as ESI because of similarities usually observed in their respective mass spectra. However, practical use of DESI-MS for protein analysis is limited to proteins with lower molecular weights (< 25 kDa) due to a mass-dependent loss in signal intensity. Here we investigated commonly used volatile acids and their ammonium salt buffers for DESI-MS analysis of protein. We noticed that, surprisingly, some additives influence the analysis differently in DESI compared to ESI. Improved signal intensities with both DESI and ESI were obtained when acetic and formic acid were added into aqueous methanol spray solvents with both DESI and ESI. On the other hand, while with ESI the addition of ammonium salts into spray solutions strongly reduced both signal and S/N, with DESI signal intensities and S/N were improved dramatically. Ammonium bicarbonate when used with DESI reduced the total amount of adduction and delivered excellent signal-to-noise ratios with high intensity; however, it also denatures protein. When native state protein mass spectra are preferred, ammonium acetate would also deliver reasonable adduct removal and improved S/N. The amount of total adduction of individual adducting species and of all species could not be correlated with differences in either solutions pH values or with proton affinities of the anions. An obvious difference between DESI and ESI mass spectrometry is the effects of protein solubility during droplet pickup (desorption), but differences in the sizes, velocities, and composition of ionizing droplets were also discussed as important factors. Graphical Abstract ᅟ.
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.