2013
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201200478
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of detergent-based sample preparation workflows for LTQ-Orbitrap analysis of the Escherichia coli proteome

Abstract: This work presents a comparative evaluation of several detergent-based sample preparation workflows for the MS-based analysis of bacterial proteomes, performed using the model organism Escherichia coli. Initially, RapiGest- and SDS-based buffers were compared for their protein extraction efficiency and quality of the MS data generated. As a result, SDS performed best in terms of total protein yields and overall number of MS identifications, mainly due to a higher efficiency in extracting high molecular weight … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
90
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(93 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
2
90
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In bacterial cells, a recent study was performed by Tanca et al, who presented a comparison of SDS/urea-FASP and ISD-RG on Escherichia coli lysates. 68 They found a slight preference of FASP over RG when assessing identification/spectrum-based parameters among around 1000 bacterial proteins. The comparison of FASP to SDC on bacterial proteomes, however, is controversially discussed in the literature, 69,70 which is likely due to individual and laboratory-specific differences in handling, instrumentation, and data analysis strategies.…”
Section: Comparison To Faspmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In bacterial cells, a recent study was performed by Tanca et al, who presented a comparison of SDS/urea-FASP and ISD-RG on Escherichia coli lysates. 68 They found a slight preference of FASP over RG when assessing identification/spectrum-based parameters among around 1000 bacterial proteins. The comparison of FASP to SDC on bacterial proteomes, however, is controversially discussed in the literature, 69,70 which is likely due to individual and laboratory-specific differences in handling, instrumentation, and data analysis strategies.…”
Section: Comparison To Faspmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry/ mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analyses of tryptic digests were performed on an LTQ Orbitrap Velos (Thermo Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA) interfaced with an UltiMate 3000 RSLCnano LC system (Dionex, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), as detailed elsewhere [31]. Peptide mixtures from gel slices were subjected to 60 min runs, comprising a 30-min gradient from 1 to 50 % eluent B (0.2 % formic acid in 95 % acetonitrile) in eluent A (0.2 % formic acid in 5 % acetonitrile).…”
Section: Western Immunoblotting and Reverse Phase Protein Arraysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When urea is used, the temperature should not exceed 60°C as the latter results in carbamylation of proteins or peptides. Repigest is another denaturant that is becoming common in shotgun proteomics due to its compatibility with LC-MS/ MS [65,66].…”
Section: Protein Digestionmentioning
confidence: 99%