Literature DB >> 17523138

pI-based phosphopeptide enrichment combined with nanoESI-MS.

Chien-Wen Hung1, Dieter Kübler, Wolf D Lehmann.   

Abstract

IEF is introduced as a new principle for enrichment and separation of phosphopeptides as obtained after digestion of phosphoproteins by trypsin. Tryptic peptides and phosphopeptides exhibit pI values, which overlap in the range of about 4-6. However, after methyl esterification of all carboxyl functions, the pI values of tryptic peptides and phosphopeptides regroup in discrete clusters. In addition, mono- and diphosphorylated peptides show different but very homogeneous pI values, with variations when internal Arg, Lys, or His residues are present. Experimentally, this new concept was applied for separation of model peptides on IPG strips pH 3-10 as used in the first dimension of 2-DE. After IEF of methyl-esterified peptides, the IPG strip was cut into pieces followed by peptide extraction, desalting and MS analysis by nanoESI-MS. Phosphopeptides were found to focus in good agreement with their calculated pI values. This analytical strategy showed a resolution of about 0.2 pI units, and thus turned out to be capable of detecting minor differences in pI values, such as those occurring between pSer, pThr and pTyr residues. Using IPG strips with a pI range of 3-10, methyl esterified nonphosphorylated tryptic peptides are concentrated in the basic part of the IPG strip or even leave the strip. Thus, efficient enrichment of phosphopeptides and their subfractionation according to pI is obtained in one step. Minor hydrolytic side reactions including deamidation of Asn and partial hydrolysis of methyl esters are observed. The results show that IEF opens attractive avenues for the further advancement of analytical phosphoproteomics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17523138     DOI: 10.1002/elps.200600678

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Electrophoresis        ISSN: 0173-0835            Impact factor:   3.535


  8 in total

Review 1.  Challenges in plasma membrane phosphoproteomics.

Authors:  Benjamin C Orsburn; Luke H Stockwin; Dianne L Newton
Journal:  Expert Rev Proteomics       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.940

2.  Phosphoprotein profiling by PA-GeLC-MS/MS.

Authors:  Kolbrun Kristjansdottir; Donald Wolfgeher; Nick Lucius; David Sigfredo Angulo; Stephen J Kron
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2008-05-30       Impact factor: 4.466

Review 3.  Quantitative proteomic analysis of histone modifications.

Authors:  He Huang; Shu Lin; Benjamin A Garcia; Yingming Zhao
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 60.622

Review 4.  Protein analysis by shotgun/bottom-up proteomics.

Authors:  Yaoyang Zhang; Bryan R Fonslow; Bing Shan; Moon-Chang Baek; John R Yates
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2013-02-26       Impact factor: 60.622

Review 5.  Mass spectrometry-based proteomics: qualitative identification to activity-based protein profiling.

Authors:  Job D Cardoza; Jignesh R Parikh; Scott B Ficarro; Jarrod A Marto
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med       Date:  2012-01-09

Review 6.  Analytical challenges translating mass spectrometry-based phosphoproteomics from discovery to clinical applications.

Authors:  Anton B Iliuk; Justine V Arrington; Weiguo Andy Tao
Journal:  Electrophoresis       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 3.535

Review 7.  Modification-specific proteomics: strategies for characterization of post-translational modifications using enrichment techniques.

Authors:  Yingming Zhao; Ole N Jensen
Journal:  Proteomics       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.984

8.  Isoelectric point-based fractionation by HiRIEF coupled to LC-MS allows for in-depth quantitative analysis of the phosphoproteome.

Authors:  Elena Panizza; Rui M M Branca; Peter Oliviusson; Lukas M Orre; Janne Lehtiö
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.