1994
DOI: 10.1016/0168-1176(93)03873-k
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors affecting the resolution in matrix-assisted laser desorption—ionization mass spectrometry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
34
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, we look at some physical factors that affect the mass resolution (Ingendoh et al, 1994; Barbacci et al, 1997, Vestal and Juhasz, 1998), at limits on the accuracy of mass calibration (Christian et al, 2000; Hack and Benner, 2002), at the role of isotope distributions (Zhang et al, 1997), and at implications for the normalization and quantification of MALDI-TOF data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, we look at some physical factors that affect the mass resolution (Ingendoh et al, 1994; Barbacci et al, 1997, Vestal and Juhasz, 1998), at limits on the accuracy of mass calibration (Christian et al, 2000; Hack and Benner, 2002), at the role of isotope distributions (Zhang et al, 1997), and at implications for the normalization and quantification of MALDI-TOF data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, the shortage of comprehensive knowledge about ionization mechanisms makes MALDI a highly empirical method [2]. Changes in both sample preparation protocols [3][4][5] and photoexcitation parameters [6][7][8][9] critically influence the quality of resulted mass spectra.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus an ideal internal standard would be an isotopically labeled analog of the analyte. However, insufficient mass resolution of the TOF instrument [16,[24][25][26] and metastable ion decay [15] does not allow one to use such an internal standard in practice. So what is generally used is a compromise between these requirements [23].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sample preparation, matrix crystallization and the conditions of the substrate surface lead to poor intra and inter sample signal reproducibility. In addition low efficiency of the detector ion-to-electron conversion [14], metastable decay in time-of-flight (TOF) instruments [15] and formation of matrix and cationized adducts inducing poor MALDI resolution [16] and sensitivity, all cause both systematic and random measurement errors. Quantitative measurements require a highly linear data acquisition system.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%