ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2019
Characterization of Protein Disulfide Linkages by MS In-Source Dissociation Comparing to CID and ETD Tandem MS.
Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2019. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of multi-disulfide bridges for insulin aspart by stepwise reduction and differentiated alkylation.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Oligoester Identification in the Inner Coatings of Metallic Cans by High-Pressure Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry with Cone Voltage-Induced Fragmentation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Microliter Sample Insulin Detection Using a Screen-Printed Electrode Modified by Nickel Hydroxide.ACS omega · 2020Article
- Ion Activation Methods for Peptides and Proteins.Analytical chemistry · 2020Review
- Experimental Assignment of Disulfide-Bonds in Purified Proteins.Current protocols in protein science · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct characterization of disulfide linkages in proteins by mass spectrometry has been challenging. Here, we report analysis of disulfide linkages in insulin variant, endothelin 3, and relaxin 2 by in-source dissociation (ISD) during LC-MS. A duplet insulin peptide from Glu-C digestion that contains peptides p1 and p2 (from chains A and B, respectively) was selected as a model peptide. This duplet peptide has an inter-chain disulfide bond between p1 and p2, and an intra-chain disulfide bond in p1. To compare the gas-phase fragmentation, it was subjected to ISD MS and MS/MS methods, including collision-induced dissociation (CID) and electron transfer dissociation (ETD). The pattern and efficiency of peptide backbone and disulfide cleavage varied with these dissociation methods. ETD, CID, and ISD were able to generate single backbone, double backbone, and triple (double backbone and single disulfide bond) cleavages in this model peptide, respectively. Specifically, CID did not cleave disulfide bonds and ETD was able to only cleave the inter-chain disulfide bond at low efficiency, limiting their usage in this disulfide analysis. In contrast, ISD was able to cleave the intra-chain disulfide bond in addition to peptide backbone, creating multiple fragment ions that allow accurate assignment of both intra- and inter-chain disulfide linkages. ISD was also successfully applied to determine double disulfide linkages in endothelin 3 and relaxin 2 peptides. This study contributes to the fundamental understanding of disulfide bond cleavages in different gas-phase fragmentations and provides an efficient cleavage strategy for identification of disulfide bonds in proteins by ISD ESI-MS. Graphical Abstract.
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.