High Mass Measurement Accuracy Determination for Proteomics Using Multivariate Regression Fitting: Application to Electrospray Ionization Time-Of-Flight Mass Spectrometry
Important factors that limit the mass measurement accuracy from a mass spectrometer are related to (1) the type of mass analyzer used and (2) the data processing/calibration methods used to obtain mass values from the raw data. Here, two data processing methods are presented that correct for systema...
Saved in:
Published in: | Analytical chemistry (Washington) Vol. 75; no. 3; pp. 460 - 468 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Washington, DC
American Chemical Society
01-02-2003
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Important factors that limit the mass measurement accuracy from a mass spectrometer are related to (1) the type of mass analyzer used and (2) the data processing/calibration methods used to obtain mass values from the raw data. Here, two data processing methods are presented that correct for systematic deviations when the mass of ions is measured using a time-of-flight (TOF) mass spectrometer. The first fitting method is one where m/z values are obtained from fitting peak distributions using double Gaussian functions. A second calibration method takes into account the slight nonlinear response of the TOF analyzer in addition to the drift in the calibration over time. Using multivariate regression, both of these two effects can be corrected for using a single calibration formula. Achievable performance was evaluated with a trypsin digestion of serum albumin and proteins from the organism D. radiodurans that was analyzed using gradient reversed-phase liquid chromatography combined with an electrospray ionization orthogonal TOF mass spectrometer. The root-mean-square deviation between the theoretical and experimental m/z values for serum albumin tryptic peptides was found to be 8 ppm using the double Gaussian−multivariate method compared to 29 ppm determined using linear calibration and normal peak centroiding. An advantage of the methods presented here is that no calibrant compounds need to be added to the mobile phase, thereby avoiding interference effects and signal suppression of analytes. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | istex:1960C7F333EAF4044AB25E79583F8D87DDE5A5A4 ark:/67375/TPS-FHBXCN2G-C ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0003-2700 1520-6882 |
DOI: | 10.1021/ac026057g |