↓ Skip to main content

Distinguishing Sulfotyrosine Containing Peptides from their Phosphotyrosine Counterparts Using Mass Spectrometry

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Distinguishing Sulfotyrosine Containing Peptides from their Phosphotyrosine Counterparts Using Mass Spectrometry
Published in
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13361-017-1854-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guangming Chen, Yixiang Zhang, Jonathan C. Trinidad, Charles Dann

Abstract

Sulfotyrosine and phosphotyrosine are two post-translational modifications present in higher eukaryotes. A simple and direct mass spectrometry method to distinguish between these modifications is crucial to advance our understanding of the sulfoproteome. While sulfation and phosphorylation are nominally isobaric, the accurate mass of the sulfuryl moiety is 9.6 mDa less than the phosphoryl moiety. Based on this difference, we have used an Orbitrap Fusion Lumos mass spectrometer to characterize, resolve, and distinguish between sulfotyrosine and phosphotyrosine modifications using a set of model peptides. Multiple fragmentation techniques, namely HCD, CID, ETD, ETciD, and EThcD, have been used to compare the different fragmentation behaviors between peptides modified with these species. Sulfotyrosine undergoes neutral loss using HCD and CID, but the sulfuryl moiety is largely stable under ETD. In contrast, phosphotyrosine is stable during fragmentation using all these methods. This differential stability provides a mechanism to distinguish sulfopeptides from phosphopeptides. Based on the rigorous characterization presented herein, this work serves as a model for accurate identification of phosphotyrosine and, more challenging, sulfotyrosine, in complex proteomic samples. Graphical Abstract ᅟ.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 41%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 31%
Chemistry 9 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 June 2023.
All research outputs
#15,175,718
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#2,291
of 3,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,826
of 449,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#17
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,835 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 449,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.