| Title |
LILBID and nESI: Different Native Mass Spectrometry Techniques as Tools in Structural Biology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13361-018-2061-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oliver Peetz, Nils Hellwig, Erik Henrich, Julija Mezhyrova, Volker Dötsch, Frank Bernhard, Nina Morgner |
| Abstract |
Native mass spectrometry is applied for the investigation of proteins and protein complexes worldwide. The challenge in native mass spectrometry is maintaining the features of the proteins of interest, such as oligomeric state, bound ligands, or the conformation of the protein complex, during transfer from solution to gas phase. This is an essential prerequisite to allow conclusions about the solution state protein complex, based on the gas phase measurements. Therefore, soft ionization techniques are required. Widely used for the analysis of protein complexes are nanoelectro spray ionization (nESI) mass spectrometers. A newer ionization method is laser induced liquid bead ion desorption (LILBID), which is based on the release of protein complexes from solution phase via infrared (IR) laser desorption. We use both methods in our lab, depending on the requirements of the biological system we are interested in. Here we benchmark the performance of our LILBID mass spectrometer in comparison to a nESI instrument, regarding sample conditions, buffer and additive tolerances, dissociation mechanism and applicability towards soluble and membrane protein complexes. Graphical Abstract ᅟ. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 23 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 33% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 March 2020.
All research outputs
#7,882,434
of 25,655,374 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#1,075
of 3,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,607
of 351,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#12
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,655,374 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,866 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 351,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 74% of its contemporaries.