created: 14th January 1998, last updated: 14th January 1998, © 1998 ABRF
The Mass Spectrometry Research Group invited laboratories to participate in its second collaborative inter-laboratory study. The study is designed to assess the abilities of member laboratories to determine, from the tryptic digest of a protein, the protein identity, which peptides are phosphorylated, and the identities of the phosphorylated residues. We request that analyses be limited to mass spectrometry-based methods, plus whatever ancillary methods you find useful (e.g., HPLC, CE). Within these constraints, however, different strategies might be used. Possible approaches might include one or more of the following: MALDI-MS, MALDI-PSD, LC-MS, CE-MS, nanoelectrospray, precursor ion scans, in-source CID, carboxypeptidases, or phosphatases. Laboratories at all levels of expertise are invited to participate and participants are encouraged to analyze the samples following the guidelines as far as their technical capabilities, skills, and experience allow. The sample contains 500 pmol of the tryptic digest of a protein. To the digest was added two synthetic peptides (500 pmol each) which are phosphorylated analogs of two of the tryptic peptides.
All results should be returned even if not all aspects of the study have been completed. In this case, a brief summary of the reason for not completing the study should be included (e.g., insufficient time, insufficient sample, inadequate instrumentation, no phosphopeptides found, etc.). We also request information regarding methodology utilized for this project and a brief description of the strategy employed.
The sample has been distributed to those who requested a sample. Results were due by December 1, and will be presented at ABRF '98 "From Genomes to Function - Technical Challenges of the Post-Genome Era" , March 21-24, 1998 in San Diego, and will be published.
The research committees' studies are among the most important aspects of the ABRF mission. These studies represent the only inter-laboratory comparisons of data for biological techniques performed on a regular basis. We believe that ABRF members will benefit from the results of this study; and, we hope that many laboratories will participate.
Return to the ABRF Home Page