Cited by 64Mass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsChemical Synthesis and AnalysisAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications

Characterization of SH2−Ligand Interactions via LibraryAffinity Selection with Mass Spectrometric Detection

Kelly, Michele A., Liang, Hongbin, Sytwu, Iou-Iou, Vlattas, Isodoros, Lyons, Nancy L., Bowen, Benjamin R., Wennogle, Lawrence P.·1996·Biochemistry

Abstract

Synthetic combinatorial libraries have proven to be a valuable source of diverse structures useful for large-scale biochemical screening. Their use has greatly facilitated the study of protein-protein interactions. We have developed a practical technique for screening such libraries by integrating affinity chromatography selection with electrospray ionization mass spectrometric detection, referred to as library affinity selection-mass spectrometry (LAS-MS). The process allows for rapid and efficient screening of solution phase libraries and provides detailed information such as the relative affinities of substrates. The method is generally applicable to include nonpeptide libraries; moreover, electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (ES-MS/MS) yields sequence-specific identification of individual components without the need for chemical tags. This technique is demonstrated using the Src homology 2 (SH2) domain of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI 3-kinase). The critical importance of methionine in the position +3 (relative to the phosphotyrosine position) is demonstrated in a library built with a phosphotyrosine mimic, (phosphonodifluoromethyl)phenylalanine. The described method has broad applicability to combinatorial library screening.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/bi960571x

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Native MS detects ligands directly bound to a protein, whereas affinity MS approaches typically measure ligand binding indirectly as free compounds.

    “An important difference between native MS and affinity MS is that native MS detects ligands directly bound to a protein, whereas affinity MS approaches typically measure ligand binding indirectly as free compounds.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelly, M. A., Liang, H., Sytwu, I.-I., Vlattas, I., Lyons, N. L., Bowen, B. R., & Wennogle, L. P.
Affiliations
CIBA Pharmaceuticals Division, 556 Morris Avenue, Summit, New Jersey 07901
Venue
Biochemistry
Published
1996-01-01
Volume
35
Issue
36
Pages
11747-11755
ISSN
  • 0006-2960 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4995
OpenAlex
W1994503397
Cited by
63
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chemical Synthesis and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Keywords
SH2 domain, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, combinatorial peptide libraries, protein-protein interaction, affinity chromatography, electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Chromatography, Affinity, Escherichia coli, Ligands, Methionine, Molecular Sequence Data, Peptides, Protein Binding, Recombinant Fusion Proteins, Mass Spectrometry, Gene Library, Phosphotransferases (Alcohol Group Acceptor), src Homology Domains, Phosphotyrosine, Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review