Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethylene glycol improves electrospray ionization efficiency in bottom-up proteomics

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Liquid chromatography coupled online to nano-electrospray ionization (nESI) tandem mass spectrometry is the analytical workhorse in the field of proteome research. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was recently shown to improve nESI efficiency by a factor of three to ten thus improving the sensitivity and coverage of proteomic experiments. However, relatively few investigations into which solvent additives promote nESI response have been performed at a proteomic scale. Here, we systematically evaluated the concept by screening about 30 compounds with various physico-chemical properties. Detailed further analysis showed that ethylene glycol performed similarly to DMSO and the results indicate that enhancing the nESI response of peptides by simple solvent additives is a valid and promising approach. Ethylene glycol may serve as a viable alternative to DMSO in applications where DMSO has disadvantages. In keeping with nESI theory, the key properties of an effective solvent additive for proteomic applications are a boiling point higher than water, low surface tension, and preferably high polarity for reversed phase LC-MS/MS applications.

Ethylene glycol substantially improves peptide ionization

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yamashita M, Fenn JB. Electrospray ion source. Another variation on the free-jet theme. J Phys Chem. 1984;88(20):4451–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Whitehouse CM, Dreyer RN, Yamashita M, Fenn JB. Electrospray interface for liquid chromatographs and mass spectrometers. Anal Chem. 1985;57(3):675–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fenn JB. Ion formation from charged droplets: roles of geometry, energy, and time. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 1993;4(7):524–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilm MS, Mann M. Electrospray and Taylor-Cone theory, Dole’s beam of macromolecules at last? Int J Mass Spectrom Ion Process. 1994;136(2):167–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilm M, Mann M. Analytical properties of the nanoelectrospray ion source. Anal Chem. 1996;68(1):1–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cox JT, Marginean I, Smith RD, Tang K. On the ionization and ion transmission efficiencies of different ESI-MS interfaces. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2014;1–8.

  7. Krutchinsky AN, Padovan JC, Cohen H, Chait BT. Optimizing electrospray interfaces using slowly diverging Conical Duct (ConDuct) electrodes. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2015;26(4):659–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Krutchinsky AN, Padovan JC, Cohen H, Chait BT. Maximizing ion transmission from atmospheric pressure into the vacuum of mass spectrometers with a novel electrospray interface. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2015;26(4):649–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kelly RT, Tolmachev AV, Page JS, Tang K, Smith RD. The ion funnel: theory, implementations, and applications. Mass Spectrom Rev. 2010;29(2):294–312.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Giles K, Pringle SD, Worthington KR, Little D, Wildgoose JL, Bateman RH. Applications of a travelling wave‐based radio‐frequency‐only stacked ring ion guide. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2004;18(20):2401–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nugent K, Kent P, Upton L. Journal of biomolecular techniquesP32-M HT proteomics LC/MS for analysis of low-abundance proteins, PTMs, and biomarkers. J Biomol Tech. 2007;18(1):12.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Page JS, Tang K, Kelly RT, Smith RD. Subambient pressure ionization with nanoelectrospray source and interface for improved sensitivity in mass spectrometry. Anal Chem. 2008;80(5):1800–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Szabó PT, Kele Z. Electrospray mass spectrometry of hydrophobic compounds using dimethyl sulfoxide and dimethylformamide as solvents. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2001;15(24):2415–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cole R, Harrata AK. Solvent effect on analyte charge state, signal intensity, and stability in negative ion electrospray mass spectrometry; implications for the mechanism of negative ion formation. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 1993;4(7):546–56. doi:10.1016/1044-0305(93)85016-Q.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ogorzalek Loo RR, Lakshmanan R, Loo JA. What protein charging (and supercharging) reveal about the mechanism of electrospray ionization. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2014;25(10):1675–93. doi:10.1007/s13361-014-0965-1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hahne H, Pachl F, Ruprecht B, Maier SK, Klaeger S, Helm D, et al. DMSO enhances electrospray response, boosting sensitivity of proteomic experiments. Nat Methods. 2013;10(10):989–91. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2610.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Meyer JG, Komives EA. Charge state coalescence during electrospray ionization improves peptide identification by tandem mass spectrometry. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2012;23(8):1390–9. doi:10.1007/s13361-012-0404-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Richards AL, Hebert AS, Ulbrich A, Bailey DJ, Coughlin EE, Westphall MS, et al. One-hour proteome analysis in yeast. Nat Protoc. 2015;10(5):701–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rosting C, Gjelstad A, Halvorsen TG. Water-soluble dried blood spot in protein analysis: a proof-of-concept study. Anal Chem. 2015;87(15):7918–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Distler U, Kuharev J, Navarro P, Tenzer S. Label-free quantification in ion mobility-enhanced data-independent acquisition proteomics. Nat Protoc. 2016;11(4):795–812.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ruprecht B, Koch H, Medard G, Mundt M, Kuster B, Lemeer S. Comprehensive and reproducible phosphopeptide enrichment using iron immobilized metal ion affinity chromatography (Fe-IMAC) columns. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015;14(1):205–15. doi:10.1074/mcp.M114.043109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lide DR. CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2004.

  23. Yaws CL, Richmond PC. Chapter 21—Surface tension—organic compounds. Thermophysical properties of chemicals and hydrocarbons. Norwich: William Andrew Publishing; 2009. p. 686–781.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Hunter EP, Lias SG. Evaluated gas phase basicities and proton affinities of molecules: an update. J Phys Chem Ref Data. 1998;27(3):413–656.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Chambers MC, Maclean B, Burke R, Amodei D, Ruderman DL, Neumann S, et al. A cross-platform toolkit for mass spectrometry and proteomics. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(10):918–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Valot B, Langella O, Nano E, Zivy M. MassChroQ: a versatile tool for mass spectrometry quantification. Proteomics. 2011;11(17):3572–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Vizcaíno JA, Côté RG, Csordas A, Dianes JA, Fabregat A, Foster JM, et al. The PRoteomics IDEntifications (PRIDE) database and associated tools: status in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(D1):D1063–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Šamalikova M, Grandori R. Protein charge-state distributions in electrospray-ionization mass spectrometry do not appear to be limited by the surface tension of the solvent. J Am Chem Soc. 2003;125(44):13352–3. doi:10.1021/ja037000u.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the funding from TUM University Foundation, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation (to P.Y.). This work was also in part funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (grant 031L0008A). The authors also wish to thank Andreas Klaus for technical assistance, Chen Meng for help with data processing, and many of the current and former members of the laboratory for help with experiments and general discussion.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hannes Hahne

    Present address: OmicScouts GmbH, St.-Valentin-Straße 5, 85356, Freising, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of Munich, Emil-Erlenmeyer-Forum-5, 85354, Freising, Germany

    Peng Yu, Hannes Hahne, Mathias Wilhelm & Bernhard Kuster

  2. Bavarian Biomolecular Mass Spectrometry Center (BayBioMS), Technical University of Munich, Gregor-Mendel-Straße 4, 85354, Freising, Germany

    Bernhard Kuster

Authors
  1. Peng Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hannes Hahne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathias Wilhelm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bernhard Kuster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernhard Kuster.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 785 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, P., Hahne, H., Wilhelm, M. et al. Ethylene glycol improves electrospray ionization efficiency in bottom-up proteomics. Anal Bioanal Chem 409, 1049–1057 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-016-0023-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-016-0023-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation