ArticlePloS one2020
Nonspecific cleavages arising from reconstitution of trypsin under mildly acidic conditions.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.
- Optimal conditions for carrying out trypsin digestions on complex proteomes: From bulk samples to single cells.Journal of proteomics · 2024Review
- Cheaper, faster, simpler trypsin digestion for high-throughput targeted protein quantification.Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab · 2023Article
- Assessing the Role of Trypsin in Quantitative Plasma and Single-Cell Proteomics toward Clinical Application.Analytical chemistry · 2023Article
- Embedding Dynamics in Intrinsic Physicochemical Profiles of Market-Stage Antibody-Based Biotherapeutics.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Investigation of Tryptic Protein Digestion in Microdroplets and in Bulk Solution.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2022Article
- SPACEPro: A Software Tool for Analysis of Protein Sample Cleavage for Tandem Mass Spectrometry.Journal of proteome research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tryptic digestion of proteins followed by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry analysis is an extensively used approach in proteomics research and biopharmaceutical product characterization, owing to the high level of cleavage fidelity produced with this technique. However, nonspecific trypsin cleavages have been frequently reported and shown to be related to a number of digestion conditions and predigestion sample treatments. In this work, we reveal that, for a number of commercial trypsins, reconstitution and storage conditions can have a significant impact on the occurrence of trypsin nonspecific cleavages. We analyzed the tryptic digestion of a variety of biotherapeutics, using trypsins reconstituted under different conditions. The results indicate that, for many commercial trypsins, commonly recommended reconstitution/storage conditions (mildly acidic, e.g., 50 mM acetic acid, 1 mM HCl) can actually promote nonspecific trypsin activities, which are time dependent and can be as high as 20% in total relative abundance. In contrast, using water for reconstitution and storage can effectively limit nonspecific cleavages to 1%. Interestingly, the performances of different commercial trypsins were found to be quite distinct in their levels of nonspecific cleavages and responses to the two reconstitution conditions. Our findings demonstrate the importance of choosing the appropriate trypsin for tryptic digestion and the necessity of assessing the impact of trypsin reconstitution and storage on nonspecific cleavages. We advocate for manufacturers of commercial trypsins to reevaluate manufacturing processes and reconstitution/storage conditions to provide good cleavage specificity.
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.