Simon A Ewing1, Micah T Donor1, Jesse W Wilson1, James S Prell2,3. 1. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Oregon, 1253 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403-1253, USA. 2. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Oregon, 1253 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403-1253, USA. jprell@uoregon.edu. 3. Materials Science Institute, University of Oregon, 1252 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403-1252, USA. jprell@uoregon.edu.
Abstract
Ion mobility-mass spectrometry (IM-MS) can be a powerful tool for determining structural information about ions in the gas phase, from small covalent analytes to large, native-like or denatured proteins and complexes. For large biomolecular ions, which may have a wide variety of possible gas-phase conformations and multiple charge sites, quantitative, physically explicit modeling of collisional cross sections (CCSs) for comparison to IMS data can be challenging and time-consuming. We present a "trajectory method" (TM) based CCS calculator, named "Collidoscope," which utilizes parallel processing and optimized trajectory sampling, and implements both He and N2 as collision gas options. Also included is a charge-placement algorithm for determining probable charge site configurations for protonated protein ions given an input geometry in pdb file format. Results from Collidoscope are compared with those from the current state-of-the-art CCS simulation suite, IMoS. Collidoscope CCSs are within 4% of IMoS values for ions with masses from ~18 Da to ~800 kDa. Collidoscope CCSs using X-ray crystal geometries are typically within a few percent of IM-MS experimental values for ions with mass up to ~3.5 kDa (melittin), and discrepancies for larger ions up to ~800 kDa (GroEL) are attributed in large part to changes in ion structure during and after the electrospray process. Due to its physically explicit modeling of scattering, computational efficiency, and accuracy, Collidoscope can be a valuable tool for IM-MS research, especially for large biomolecular ions. Graphical Abstract ᅟ.
Ion mobility-mass spectrometry (IM-MS) can be a powerful tool for determining structural information about ions in tpan class="Chemical">he gas phase, from small covalent analytes to large, native-like or denatured proteins and complexes. For large biomolecular ions, which may have a wide variety of possible gas-phase conformations and multiple charge sites, quantitative, physically explicit modeling of collisional cross sections (CCSs) for comparison to IMS data can be challenging and time-consuming. We present a "trajectory method" (TM) based CCS calculator, named "Collidoscope," which utilizes parallel processing and optimized trajectory sampling, and implements both He and N2 as collision gas options. Also included is a charge-placement algorithm for determining probable charge site configurations for protonated protein ions given an input geometry in pdb file format. Results from Collidoscope are compared with those from the current state-of-the-art CCS simulation suite, IMoS. Collidoscope CCSs are within 4% of IMoS values for ions with masses from ~18 Da to ~800 kDa. Collidoscope CCSs using X-ray crystal geometries are typically within a few percent of IM-MS experimental values for ions with mass up to ~3.5 kDa (melittin), and discrepancies for larger ions up to ~800 kDa (GroEL) are attributed in large part to changes in ion structure during and after the electrospray process. Due to its physically explicit modeling of scattering, computational efficiency, and accuracy, Collidoscope can be a valuable tool for IM-MS research, especially for large biomolecular ions. Graphical Abstract ᅟ.
Entities:
Keywords:
Collisional cross-section; Computational theory; Ion mobility; Native IM-MS; Native mass spectrometry; Noncovalent complexes; Trajectory method
Authors: Harry J Sterling; Alexander F Kintzer; Geoffrey K Feld; Catherine A Cassou; Bryan A Krantz; Evan R Williams Journal: J Am Soc Mass Spectrom Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Iain Campuzano; Matthew F Bush; Carol V Robinson; Claire Beaumont; Keith Richardson; Hyungjun Kim; Hugh I Kim Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2011-12-27 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Brandon T Ruotolo; Justin L P Benesch; Alan M Sandercock; Suk-Joon Hyung; Carol V Robinson Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2008-06-19 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Carlos Larriba-Andaluz; Juan Fernández-García; Michael A Ewing; Christopher J Hogan; David E Clemmer Journal: Phys Chem Chem Phys Date: 2015-06-14 Impact factor: 3.676
Authors: Summer L Bernstein; Nicholas F Dupuis; Noel D Lazo; Thomas Wyttenbach; Margaret M Condron; Gal Bitan; David B Teplow; Joan-Emma Shea; Brandon T Ruotolo; Carol V Robinson; Michael T Bowers Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Rune Salbo; Matthew F Bush; Helle Naver; Iain Campuzano; Carol V Robinson; Ingrid Pettersson; Thomas J D Jørgensen; Kim F Haselmann Journal: Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Erik G Marklund; Matteo T Degiacomi; Carol V Robinson; Andrew J Baldwin; Justin L P Benesch Journal: Structure Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: Jacob W McCabe; Christopher S Mallis; Klaudia I Kocurek; Michael L Poltash; Mehdi Shirzadeh; Michael J Hebert; Liqi Fan; Thomas E Walker; Xueyun Zheng; Ting Jiang; Shiyu Dong; Cheng-Wei Lin; Arthur Laganowsky; David H Russell Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Erik Schneider; Katrina Brendle; Patrick Jäger; Patrick Weis; Manfred M Kappes Journal: J Am Soc Mass Spectrom Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Christopher A Myers; Rebecca J D'Esposito; Daniele Fabris; Srivathsan V Ranganathan; Alan A Chen Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Sean P Cleary; Huilin Li; Dhanashri Bagal; Joseph A Loo; Iain D G Campuzano; James S Prell Journal: J Am Soc Mass Spectrom Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 3.109