MALD/I TOF PSD and CID: Understanding precision, resolution, and mass accuracy and MALD/I TOFMS: Investigation of discrimination issues related to solubility

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Hoteling
Keyword(s):  
2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 2454-2464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy M. McKenna ◽  
Jeffrey T. Williams ◽  
Jonathan C. Putman ◽  
Christoph Aeppli ◽  
Christopher M. Reddy ◽  
...  

Talanta ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 122641
Author(s):  
Antonio Jesús Maldonado-Reina ◽  
Rosalía López-Ruiz ◽  
Antonia Garrido-Frenich ◽  
F. Javier Arrebola ◽  
Roberto Romero-González

2012 ◽  
Vol 444 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay J. Thelen ◽  
Ján A. Miernyk

A newcomer to the -omics era, proteomics, is a broad instrument-intensive research area that has advanced rapidly since its inception less than 20 years ago. Although the ‘wet-bench’ aspects of proteomics have undergone a renaissance with the improvement in protein and peptide separation techniques, including various improvements in two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and gel-free or off-gel protein focusing, it has been the seminal advances in MS that have led to the ascension of this field. Recent improvements in sensitivity, mass accuracy and fragmentation have led to achievements previously only dreamed of, including whole-proteome identification, and quantification and extensive mapping of specific PTMs (post-translational modifications). With such capabilities at present, one might conclude that proteomics has already reached its zenith; however, ‘capability’ indicates that the envisioned goals have not yet been achieved. In the present review we focus on what we perceive as the areas requiring more attention to achieve the improvements in workflow and instrumentation that will bridge the gap between capability and achievement for at least most proteomes and PTMs. Additionally, it is essential that we extend our ability to understand protein structures, interactions and localizations. Towards these ends, we briefly focus on selected methods and research areas where we anticipate the next wave of proteomic advances.


2020 ◽  
Vol 127 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 23-29
Author(s):  
James G. Saxton ◽  
Joel G. Greenya ◽  
Christopher L. Kliethermes ◽  
David S. Senchina

Commercially available running shoes differ in terms of their relative masses. It is unclear how well consumers may be able to judge mass differences from wearing alone, though previous studies suggest that perceptual outcomes may be influenced by experimental design factors such as the length of time worn. The purpose of this study was to investigate how the number of shoes used in a testing session impacts wearers' mass perceptual accuracy. Forty-eight young adult males ran for 5 min in 4 pairs of shoes (their own running shoes plus 3 unfamiliar pairs) before being asked whether an unfamiliar running shoe was heavier or lighter than their own, and to indicate perceptions of shoe heaviness (mass), comfort, stability, and temperature using visual analogue scales (VAS). A subset (n=18) was also asked to provide global rank orderings after wearing all 4 pairs of shoes. Participants were 67% accurate in the heavier/lighter task and 64% accurate in the global rank order task. Global rank order scores and VAS heaviness marks were significantly and positively correlated. Mass accuracy scores (n=48) were then compared to a previous study (n=25) performed by the same investigators using the same methods but with 6 pairs of shoes instead of 4. No difference in accuracy scores for either the heavier/lighter comparisons or global rank order scores between the study populations was found, suggesting that the number of test shoes may not influence mass perception accuracy.


PROTEOMICS ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (18) ◽  
pp. 2480-2490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan A. Epstein ◽  
Paul S. Blank ◽  
Brian C. Searle ◽  
Aaron D. Catlin ◽  
Stephanie M. Cologna ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 275 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.Kirk Green ◽  
Murray V. Johnston ◽  
Barbara S. Larsen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document