Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of HCD- and CID-type Fragmentation Within Their Respective Detection Platforms For Murine Phosphoproteomics

Open access
Jedrychowski, Mark P., Huttlin, Edward L., Haas, Wilhelm, Sowa, Mathew E., Rad, Ramin, Gygi, Steven P.·2011·Molecular & Cellular Proteomics

Abstract

Protein phosphorylation modulates a myriad of biological functions, and its regulation is vital for proper cellular activity. Mass spectrometry is the enabling tool for phosphopeptide analysis, where recent instrumentation advances in both speed and sensitivity in linear ion trap and orbitrap technologies may yield more comprehensive phosphoproteomic analyses in less time. Protein phosphorylation analysis by MS relies on structural information derived through controlled peptide fragmentation. Compared with traditional, ion-trap-based collision-induced dissociation (CID), a more recent type of fragmentation termed HCD (higher energy collisional dissociation) provides beam type CID tandem MS with detection of fragment ions at high resolution in the orbitrap mass analyzer. Here we compared HCD to traditional CID for large-scale phosphorylation analyses of murine brain under three separate experimental conditions. These included a same-precursor analysis where CID and HCD scans were performed back-to-back, separate analyses of a phosphotyrosine peptide immunoprecipitation experiment, and separate whole phosphoproteome analyses. HCD generally provided higher search engine scores with more peptides identified, thus out-performing CID for back-to-back experiments for most metrics tested. However, for phosphotyrosine IPs and in a full phosphoproteome study of mouse brain, the greater acquisition speed of CID-only analyses provided larger data sets. We reconciled our results with those in direct contradiction from Nagaraj N, D'Souza RCJ et al. (J. Proteome Res. 9:6786, 2010). We conclude, for large-scale phosphoproteomics, CID fragmentation with rapid detection in the ion trap still produced substantially richer data sets, but the back-to-back experiments demonstrated the promise of HCD and orbitrap detection for the future.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1074/mcp.m111.009910

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 189

Metadata

Authors
Jedrychowski, M. P., Huttlin, E. L., Haas, W., Sowa, M. E., Rad, R., & Gygi, S. P.
Venue
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
M111.009910
ISSN
1535-9476 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117903500
Cited by
189
References
8
FWCI
8.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of HCD- and CID-type Fragmentation Within Their Respective Detection Platforms For Murine Phosphoproteomics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1074/mcp.m111.009910
The paper
Jedrychowski, M. P., Huttlin, E. L., Haas, W., Sowa, M. E., Rad, R., & Gygi, S. P. (2011). Evaluation of HCD- and CID-type Fragmentation Within Their Respective Detection Platforms For Murine Phosphoproteomics. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.m111.009910

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.