Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Mass spectrometry (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
- MPI für Biophysik (1)
The heterogeneity and complexity of glycosylation hinder the depth of site-specific glycoproteomics analysis. High-field asymmetric-waveform ion-mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) has been shown to improve the scope of bottom-up proteomics. The benefits of FAIMS for quantitative N-glycoproteomics have not been investigated yet. In this work, we optimized FAIMS settings for N-glycopeptide identification, with or without the tandem mass tag (TMT) label. The optimized FAIMS approach significantly increased the identification of site-specific N-glycopeptides derived from the purified immunoglobulin M (IgM) protein or human lymphoma cells. We explored in detail the changes in FAIMS mobility caused by N-glycopeptides with different characteristics, including TMT labeling, charge state, glycan type, peptide sequence, glycan size, and precursor m/z. Importantly, FAIMS also improved multiplexed N-glycopeptide quantification, both with the standard MS2 acquisition method and with our recently developed Glyco-SPS-MS3 method. The combination of FAIMS and Glyco-SPS-MS3 methods provided the highest quantitative accuracy and precision. Our results demonstrate the advantages of FAIMS for improved mass spectrometry-based qualitative and quantitative N-glycoproteomics.
In recent decades, mass spectrometry has moved more than ever before into the front line of protein-centered research. After being established at the qualitative level, the more challenging question of quantification of proteins and peptides using mass spectrometry has become a focus for further development. In this chapter, we discuss and review actual strategies and problems of the methods for the quantitative analysis of peptides, proteins, and finally proteomes by mass spectrometry. The common themes, the differences, and the potential pitfalls of the main approaches are presented in order to provide a survey of the emerging field of quantitative, mass spectrometry-based proteomics.