Performance comparisons of nano-LC systems, electrospray sources and LC-MS-MS platforms

纳米液相色谱系统、电喷雾源和液相色谱-串联质谱平台性能比较

阅读:1

Abstract

Selecting a suitable nano-liquid chromatography system (LC), ionization source and mass spectrometer for LC-tandem mass spectrometry (MS-MS) studies is complicated by numerous competing technologies. This study compares four popular nano-LC systems, four ionization sources and three MS facilities that use completely different LC-MS-MS systems. Statistically significant differences in LC performance were identified with similarly performing Proxeon, Waters and Eksigent nanoLC-Ultra systems [retention time routinely at 0.7-0.9% relative standard deviation (RSD)], and all outperformed the Eksigent nanoLC-2D (RSD ∼2%). In addition, compatibility issues were identified between the Bruker HCT ion trap mass spectrometer and both the Eksigent nanoLC-2D and the Bruker nanoelectrospray source. The electrospray source itself had an unexpected and striking effect on chromatographic reproducibility on the Bruker HCT ion trap. The New Objective nanospray source significantly outperformed the Bruker nanospray source in retention time RSD (1% RSD versus 14% RSD, respectively); and the Bruker nebulized nanospray source outperformed both of these traditional, non-nebulized sources (0.5% RSD in retention time). Finally, to provide useful benchmarks for overall proteomics sensitivity, different LC-MS-MS platforms were compared by analyzing a range of concentrations of tryptic digests of bovine serum albumin at three MS facilities. The results indicate that similar sensitivity can be realized with a Bruker HCT-Ultra ion trap, a Thermo LTQ-Velos Linear ion trap and a Thermo LTQ-Orbitrap XL-ETD.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。