Commentary: The comparison between 2DE-MS and bottom-up LC-MS demands high-end 
techniques for both technologies.

Zhan, Xianquan; Jungblut, Peter R.

doi:10.1002/elps.202200036

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Commentary

Commentary: The comparison between 2DE-MS and bottom-up LC-MS demands high-end techniques for both technologies.

MPS-Authors

Jungblut, Peter R.
Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Zhan, X., & Jungblut, P. R. (2022). Commentary: The comparison between 2DE-MS and bottom-up LC-MS demands high-end techniques for both technologies.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000A-1F4F-D

Abstract

In contrast to bottom-up LC-MS only 2DE-MS can separate and detect a huge number of human protein species. Kwiatkowski et al. (in this issue) established parameters to estimate the amount of protein speciation for each human protein. Proteins identified in 2DE-MS approaches showed more protein speciation than in bottom-up LC-MS. The authors state that protein speciation is likely to increase the chance of proteins to be determined in 2-DE/MS, though admitting that low sensitivity 2DE-MS methods were used in this study. In agreement with Kwiatkowski et al. we are convinced, this difference between 2DE-MS and bottom-up LC-MS will disappear, if high-resolution 2DE, is combined with identification by a high-sensitivity LC-Orbitrap-MS. Meta-analysis of proteomic data is surely a promising tool, though the technological progress in 2DE and MS has to reach a plateau to enable useful comparisons. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.