The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Phosphorylation Analysis by Mass Spectrometry
Open accessAbstract
The mass spectrometric analysis of protein phosphorylation is still far from being routine, and the outcomes thereof are often unsatisfying. Apart from the inherent problem of substoichiometric phosphorylation, three arguments as to why phosphorylation analysis is so problematic are often quoted, including (a) increased hydrophilicity of the phosphopeptide with a concomitant loss during the loading onto reversed-phase columns, (b) selective suppression of the ionization of phosphopeptides in the presence of unmodified peptides, and (c) lower ionization/detection efficiencies of phosphopeptides as compared with their unmodified cognates. Here we present the results of a study investigating the validity of these three arguments when using electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. We utilized a set of synthetic peptide/phosphopeptide pairs that were quantitated by amino acid analysis. Under the applied conditions none of the experiments performed supports the notions of (a) generally increased risks of losing phosphopeptides during the loading onto the reversed-phase column because of decreased retention and (b) the selective ionization suppression of phosphopeptides. The issue of ionization/detection efficiencies of phosphopeptides versus their unphosphorylated cognates proved to be less straightforward when using electrospray ionization because no evidence for decreased ionization/detection efficiencies for phosphopeptides could be found.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Proteomic Analysis of in Vivo Phosphorylated Synaptic Proteins
Collins, M. O., Yu, L., Coba, M. P., Husi, H., Campuzano, I., Blackstock, W. P., Choudhary, J. S., & Grant, S. G. N. (2005) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.m411220200 · Cited by 320
Cited by
Quantitative Phosphoproteomics of Early Elicitor Signaling in Arabidopsis
Benschop, J. J., Mohammed, S., O'Flaherty, M., Heck, A. J. R., Slijper, M., & Menke, F. L. H. (2007) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m600429-mcp200 · Cited by 676
Nesvizhskii, A. I. (2010) · Journal of Proteomics · doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2010.08.009 · Cited by 536
Aliphatic Diazirines as Photoaffinity Probes for Proteins: Recent Developments
Das, J. (2011) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr1002722 · Cited by 271
In Vivo Phosphorylation Site Mapping and Functional Characterization of Arabidopsis Phototropin 1
Sullivan, S., Thomson, C. E., Lamont, D. J., Jones, M. A., & Christie, J. M. (2008) · Molecular Plant · doi:10.1093/mp/ssm017 · Cited by 107
Towards comprehensive and quantitative proteomics for diagnosis and therapy of human disease
Cifani, P., & Kentsis, A. (2017) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.201600079 · Cited by 101
Metadata
- Authors
- Steen, H., Jebanathirajah, J. A., Rush, J., Morrice, N., & Kirschner, M. W.
- Venue
- Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 172-181
- ISSN
- 1535-9476 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2071555141
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.41
- 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: Phosphorylation Analysis by Mass Spectrometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1074/mcp.m500135-mcp200
- The paper
- Steen, H., Jebanathirajah, J. A., Rush, J., Morrice, N., & Kirschner, M. W. (2006). Phosphorylation Analysis by Mass Spectrometry. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.m500135-mcp200
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.