Dataset Information

Crosslinking Mass Spectrometry

ABSTRACT: Crosslinking mass spectrometry collected on Lumos Orbitrap elite with HCD and UVPD. BS3 and DMTMM were used for crosslinking separately.

ORGANISM(S): Homo Sapiens (human)

SUBMITTER: Jennifer Brodbelt

PROVIDER: PXD008935 | JPOST Repository | Wed Feb 13 00:00:00 GMT 2019

REPOSITORIES: jPOST

ACCESS DATA

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
	03022017_BSA_DMTMM_tryp_1_UVPD.raw	Raw
	03022017_BSA_DMTMM_tryp_2_UVPD.raw	Raw
	03022017_BSA_DMTMM_tryp_3_UVPD.raw	Raw
	03062017_BSA_DMTMM_tryp_1_HCD.raw	Raw
	03062017_BSA_DMTMM_tryp_2_HCD.raw	Raw

Items per page:

1 - 5 of 20

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: ADP-ribosylation is a post-translational modification that plays an important role in cellular processes. Our previous work implemented multiple gas-phase separation strategies (e.g., FAIMS) and in-source CID on the quadrupole-Orbitrap (Exploris 480) to increase the yield and acceptor site confidence scores of HCD-dependent ADP-ribosyl (ADPr) peptide identifications. We evaluated whether FAIMS coupled on the quadruple-ion trap-Orbitrap (Fusion Lumos) also improves EThcD-dependent ADP-ribosyl peptide sequencing. Methods: ADPr peptides derived from the human macrophage-like cell line THP-1 (THP-1-Mφ) were analyzed on the Lumos fronted with a FAIMS Pro and EASY-Spray Source, coupled to an Easy-nLC1200 HPLC pump. Gas-phase segmentation (GPS) for the MS1 scan range, and single and multiple combined compensation voltages (CVs) for FAIMS were applied for HCD and EThcD properties. ADP-ribosyl peptide spectra were analyzed using Proteome Discoverer 2.5. The ptmRS function was used for calculating ADP-ribosyl site probabilities. Results: We evaluated the number of ADPr and non-ADPr PSMs using ADPr peptides pooled from PBS and IFN-γ treated THP-1-Mφ across a range of CVs (-40V to -85V) using FAIMS with HCD and EThcD. The peak CVs for ADPr and non-ADPr PSMs were shifted for HCD, while they represented similar distributions for EThcD. The net number of unique ADPr and non-ADPr peptides across the CVs increased by 3.2- and 3.8-fold more respectively for HCD, and 2.0- and 3.6-fold respectively for EThcD, compared to no FAIMS. We then tested 4 distinct MS methods: (method 1: m/z 400-900, method 2: m/z 400-655 and m/z 650-900, method 3: three CVs combination (-50V, -60V, -70V) with m/z 400-900, method 4: three different acquisitions using distinct CVs (-50V, -60V, -70V) with m/z 400-900) for identifying the maximum number of ADPr acceptor sites with high (>95%) confidence using EThcD. Method 4 was best with 562 ADPr PSMs, but only 54% were high confidence ADPr sites. Due to sample volume limitation, we used method 3 for analyzing ADPr peptides enriched from THP-1-Mφ treated with PBS or IFN-γ separately. We identified 324 and 196 unique ADPr peptides from PBS and IFN-γ, of which 257 and 139 unique acceptor sites were identified with high confidence. The most frequent ADPr acceptor site was lysine (>90%), followed by serine. Conclusion: Our data demonstrated that while FAIMS is valuable for EThcD-dependent sequencing of ADPr peptides, the gains are less for ADPr peptides or contaminant non-ADPr peptides when using HCD.

Dataset Information

Crosslinking Mass Spectrometry

Dataset's files

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets