↓ Skip to main content

SILAC-Pulse Proteolysis: A Mass Spectrometry-Based Method for Discovery and Cross-Validation in Proteome-Wide Studies of Ligand Binding

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
SILAC-Pulse Proteolysis: A Mass Spectrometry-Based Method for Discovery and Cross-Validation in Proteome-Wide Studies of Ligand Binding
Published in
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13361-014-0992-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jagat Adhikari, Michael C. Fitzgerald

Abstract

Reported here is the use of stable isotope labeling with amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) and pulse proteolysis (PP) for detection and quantitation of protein-ligand binding interactions on the proteomic scale. The incorporation of SILAC into PP enables the PP technique to be used for the unbiased detection and quantitation of protein-ligand binding interactions in complex biological mixtures (e.g., cell lysates) without the need for prefractionation. The SILAC-PP technique is demonstrated in two proof-of-principle experiments using proteins in a yeast cell lysate and two test ligands including a well-characterized drug, cyclosporine A (CsA), and a non-hydrolyzable adenosine triphosphate (ATP) analogue, adenylyl imidodiphosphate (AMP-PNP). The well-known tight-binding interaction between CsA and cyclophilin A was successfully detected and quantified in replicate analyses, and a total of 33 proteins from a yeast cell lysate were found to have AMP-PNP-induced stability changes. In control experiments, the method's false positive rate of protein target discovery was found to be in the range of 2.1% to 3.6%. SILAC-PP and the previously reported stability of protein from rates of oxidation (SPROX) technique both report on the same thermodynamic properties of proteins and protein-ligand complexes. However, they employ different probes and mass spectrometry-based readouts. This creates the opportunity to cross-validate SPROX results with SILAC-PP results, and vice-versa. As part of this work, the SILAC-PP results obtained here were cross-validated with previously reported SPROX results on the same model systems to help differentiate true positives from false positives in the two experiments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 24%
Chemistry 9 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#3,083
of 3,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,137
of 268,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#21
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,833 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,067 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.