4.8 Article

LipidCreator workbench to probe the lipidomic landscape

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-15960-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. BMBF grant LIFS [de.NBI/BMBF 031L0108A, de.NBI/BMBF 031L0108B]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [374031971 - TRR 240]
  3. Leibniz Association
  4. Ministerium fur Kultur und Wissenschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen
  5. Regierende Burgermeister von Berlin, Senatskanzlei Wissenschaft und Forschung
  6. Wissenschaft und Forschung
  7. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung
  8. VILLUM Foundation [VKR023439]
  9. Lundbeckfonden [R54-A5858]
  10. Skyline R01 (Skyline Targeted Proteomics Environment) [R01 GM103551]
  11. National University of Singapore via the Life Sciences Institute (LSI)
  12. Singapore National Research Foundation [NRFI2015-05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mass spectrometry (MS)-based targeted lipidomics enables the robust quantification of selected lipids under various biological conditions but comprehensive software tools to support such analyses are lacking. Here we present LipidCreator, a software that fully supports targeted lipidomics assay development. LipidCreator offers a comprehensive framework to compute MS/MS fragment masses for over 60 lipid classes. LipidCreator provides all functionalities needed to define fragments, manage stable isotope labeling, optimize collision energy and generate in silico spectral libraries. We validate LipidCreator assays computationally and analytically and prove that it is capable to generate large targeted experiments to analyze blood and to dissect lipid-signaling pathways such as in human platelets. Targeted mass spectrometry enables reproducible and accurate lipid quantification but dedicated software tools to develop targeted lipidomics assays are lacking. Here, the authors develop a targeted lipidomics workbench and lipid knowledgebase for the streamlined generation of targeted assays.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据