4.8 Article

Global Phosphoproteome Analysis Using High-Field Asymmetric Waveform Ion Mobility Spectrometry on a Hybrid Orbitrap Mass Spectrometer

Journal

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 92, Issue 24, Pages 15959-15967

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c03415

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [P41GM108538]
  2. Thermo Fisher Scientific

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mass spectrometry is the premier tool for identifying and quantifying protein phosphorylation on a global scale. Analysis of phosphopeptides requires enrichment, and even after the samples remain highly complex and exhibit broad dynamic range of abundance. Achieving maximal depth of coverage for phosphoproteomics therefore typically necessitates offline liquid chromatography prefractionation, a time-consuming and laborious approach. Here, we incorporate a recently commercialized aerodynamic high-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) device into the phosphoproteomic workflow. We characterize the effects of phosphorylation on the FAIMS separation, describe optimized compensation voltage settings for unlabeled phosphopeptides, and demonstrate the advantages of FAIMS-enabled gas-phase fractionation. Standard FAIMS single-shot analyses identified around 15-20% additional phosphorylation sites than control experiments without FAIMS. In comparison to liquid chromatography prefractionation, FAIMS experiments yielded similar or superior results when analyzing up to four discrete gas-phase fractions. Although using FAIMS led to a modest reduction in the precision of quantitative measurements when using label-free approaches, the data collected with FAIMS yielded a 26% increase in total reproducible measurements. Overall, we conclude that the new FAIMS technology is a valuable addition to any phosphoproteomic workflow, with greater benefits emerging from longer analyses and higher amounts of material.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available