Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 17:00:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Clive A. Slaughter" <slaugh01@utsw.swmed.edu>
Subject: High Sensitivity MS/MS Sequencing
To: Recipients of ABRF List <abrf@aecom.yu.edu>
Dear ABRF Newslist Subscribers,
I appreciated Ken Williams' service in posting his recent questions about
high sensitivity MS/MS sequencing, and have benefited greatly from the
ensuing discussion.
In the latter half of last year the Dallas core facility had the
opportunity to update its mass spectrometric capabilities by installing two
new instruments, a Micromass Quattro II and a PerSeptive Voyager DE. Using
these instruments, we are presently working toward implementation of the
high sensitivity techniques that are the subject of the present discussion.
In planning our experiments to establish new methodologies, it became clear
to me that we would be involved in a multi-stage, open-ended project, not
simply the implementation of one or two changes that could be performed by
fiat. The reasons are as follows:
1. To achieve our goals of high sensitivity would not simply require us to
learn how to use the new instruments, but would also demand a re-evaluation
of all our sample handling methods. Every manipulation we perform would
have to be revisited.
2. Every change we make in our operating procedures would have to be tested
first with standard samples and then assessed for "robustness" in analyzing
a range of unknowns over an extended period of time. Only then could we be
sure that we'd really made a general and sustainable improvement.
3. All the individual changes would have to be integrated to create a
streamlined approach to our projects. Attention to managerial issues is
always an important part of any project in which several technicians must
work together.
4. In the context of our high throughput laboratory, all this would have to
be done while remaining abreast of the routine demands placed upon us. We
cannot and, as implied above, should not cease providing services while we
are studying new methodology. Nevertheless, there is extreme pressure on
instrument and technician time that makes the implementation of new methods
difficult.
The process is therefore neither straight forward nor easy, but we are
strongly committed to making the new methods work and to understanding how
they work. To remain competitive, we must succeed.
With regard to the effect of papers publicizing new methodological
capabilities, I would comment that ABRF has set a high standard in the
description and evaluation of methodologies. The work of ABRF members
transcends advertisement of their respective capabilities and establishes
standards to which all of us interested in communicating new methodologies
should aspire.