• This record comes from PubMed

Assessing the Relationship Between Mass Window Width and Retention Time Scheduling on Protein Coverage for Data-Independent Acquisition

. 2019 Aug ; 30 (8) : 1396-1405. [epub] 20190530

Language English Country United States Media print-electronic

Document type Journal Article

Links

PubMed 31147889
DOI 10.1007/s13361-019-02243-1
PII: 10.1007/s13361-019-02243-1
Knihovny.cz E-resources

Due to the technical advances of mass spectrometers, particularly increased scanning speed and higher MS/MS resolution, the use of data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry (DIA-MS) became more popular, which enables high reproducibility in both proteomic identification and quantification. The current DIA-MS methods normally cover a wide mass range, with the aim to target and identify as many peptides and proteins as possible and therefore frequently generate MS/MS spectra of high complexity. In this report, we assessed the performance and benefits of using small windows with, e.g., 5-m/z width across the peptide elution time. We further devised a new DIA method named RTwinDIA that schedules the small isolation windows in different retention time blocks, taking advantage of the fact that larger peptides are normally eluting later in reversed phase chromatography. We assessed the direct proteomic identification by using shotgun database searching tools such as MaxQuant and pFind, and also Spectronaut with an external comprehensive spectral library of human proteins. We conclude that algorithms like pFind have potential in directly analyzing DIA data acquired with small windows, and that the instrumental time and DIA cycle time, if prioritized to be spent on small windows rather than on covering a broad mass range by large windows, will improve the direct proteome coverage for new biological samples and increase the quantitative precision. These results further provide perspectives for the future convergence between DDA and DIA on faster MS analyzers.

See more in PubMed

Bioinformatics. 2004 Nov 22;20(17):3236-7 PubMed

Nat Methods. 2004 Oct;1(1):39-45 PubMed

Nat Methods. 2007 Mar;4(3):207-14 PubMed

Nature. 2008 Oct 30;455(7217):1251-4 PubMed

Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Dec;26(12):1367-72 PubMed

Anal Chem. 2009 Aug 1;81(15):6481-8 PubMed

Bioinformatics. 2010 Apr 1;26(7):966-8 PubMed

Anal Chem. 2011 Mar 15;83(6):2250-7 PubMed

Mol Cell Proteomics. 2012 Jun;11(6):O111.016717 PubMed

Nat Methods. 2012 May 30;9(6):555-66 PubMed

Nat Methods. 2013 Aug;10(8):744-6 PubMed

Nat Biotechnol. 2014 Mar;32(3):219-23 PubMed

Mol Cell Proteomics. 2014 Nov;13(11):3211-23 PubMed

Proteomics Clin Appl. 2015 Apr;9(3-4):307-21 PubMed

Mol Syst Biol. 2015 Feb 04;11(1):786 PubMed

Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015 May;14(5):1400-10 PubMed

Sci Data. 2014 Sep 16;1:140031 PubMed

Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015 Sep;14(9):2301-7 PubMed

Proteomics. 2016 Aug;16(15-16):2246-56 PubMed

Nature. 2016 Sep 14;537(7620):347-55 PubMed

Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Nov;34(11):1130-1136 PubMed

Proteomics. 2017 May;17(9):null PubMed

Nat Methods. 2017 Sep;14(9):921-927 PubMed

Nat Commun. 2017 Aug 21;8(1):291 PubMed

Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2017 Nov 30;31(22):1915-1926 PubMed

J Proteome Res. 2018 Feb 2;17(2):770-779 PubMed

Mol Cell Proteomics. 2017 Dec;16(12):2296-2309 PubMed

Nat Commun. 2017 Oct 31;8(1):1212 PubMed

J Proteome Res. 2018 Jan 5;17(1):727-738 PubMed

Mol Syst Biol. 2018 Aug 13;14(8):e8126 PubMed

Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Oct 08;:null PubMed

Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D442-D450 PubMed

Nat Commun. 2018 Dec 3;9(1):5128 PubMed

Anal Chem. 2019 Feb 5;91(3):2201-2208 PubMed

Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Mar;37(3):314-322 PubMed

Proteomics. 2019 Jul;19(13):e1800438 PubMed

Mol Cell Proteomics. 2019 Jun;18(6):1242-1254 PubMed

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...