21 Temmuz 2015 Salı

Added PRM/DIA to QE cycle time calculator


Okay! So that got downloaded a LOT!!!  Thanks for the feedback!

Motivated me to do some updates on my lunch break.  In the Q Exactive Family Cycle Time calculator you will find some important updates including an important "read me" section including my assumptions and references for where I got the math I used.

More importantly, however, is that I added sections of parallel reaction monitoring calculations (PRM, also called T-MS2 in QE Tune previous to version 2.4) and simple DIA.

You can get the new and improved calculator here.

20 Temmuz 2015 Pazartesi

Q Exactive/Plus/HF cycle time calculator!



I got kind of motivated Sunday and finally knocked out a project that I've wanted to for a while.

Introducing the Q Exactive TopN cycle time calculator.  This simple Excel spreadsheet allows you to pull down the resolution and insert the max fill time for your method and will give you the minimum and maximium possible cycle times for your experiment.

Its for estimation purposes only but its something I like not having to think about.  You can download it here. 

BTW, in this exercise I'm defining "cycle time" as something like: "the amount of time it takes to perform all of the events you asked the instrument to do before it goes back and starts at the beginning (in this case, start the next MS1 scan)"

I hope to expand it later to include targeted and DIA experiments but it might be a bit.  Oh, and as always this isn't any official vendor type stuff (see dislcaimer section in spreadsheet AND this blog and please don't sue me!)

19 Temmuz 2015 Pazar

How do I determine my peak width for optimal dynamic exclusion settings?


Whenever we talk about ideal dynamic exclusion settings I always start saying things like setting your numbers according to your peak widths.  This week I realized that not everyone knows how to do this!

The way I do this is by opening a file in Xcalibur.  Once I've done that I set some ranges with tight extraction windows so that I can look at a couple of good peptides. If its a human sample I look for two specific peptides.  Their m/z(s) are:

722.32477
and
756.42590

These are two peptides from albumin.  The first is relatively hydrophilic and the second is relatively hydrophobic.  Since albumin is everywhere I'm going to always see them, whether its plasma or cell pellets or whatever.

To extract the peaks, click the thumbtack on your chromatogram.  Next, right click anywhere on the chromatogram.  Before you do anything else, toggle the tab over to the "Automatic processing" tab.


Set up the mass tolerance settings as above.  I like 5ppm, though you can probably go lower on a recently calibrated Orbitrap, but 5ppm will do it.  I don't use any smoothing or nuthin unless I'm trying to prepare a figure for people outside of the field to look at.

Next toggle back to ranges.  You'll need to set it up as so:


So, add 2 ranges to your chromatogram tabs.  Set them as base peaks and so that they only look at the MS1 scan filter.  The box above shows how to search for the hydrophilic peptide.  Repeat for the next row but enter the range(s) for the mass of the hydrophobic peptide.  Hit "OK". You should now be looking at something like this:



You can't see much until you actually zoom in on the peak.  You do this by clicking and dragging across the peak individually.  On this 2 hour gradient the first one looks like this:


Now, we can just eyeball this and say "Yup! Thats about 30 seconds" or we can drag the mouse across the line.  Normally in chromatography we would consider the peak width by measured across the peak at half height.  This is NOT how we do this for dynamic exclusion.  What you want to do is measure the peak from the intensity threshold cutoff in your method (or as close as you can get!)


(click to expand if you want to see it!

When this ion was first detected within this mass range on the instrument its intensity was 2e5.  On a Q Exactive, my intensity threshold cutoff filter is typically in the 1-2e4 range.  So the first time that this ion appeared in the chromatography it could be selected for fragmention.  If it was then the dynamic exclusion would start counting at that point.  In this case it was at 57.71 minutes.  If I look at the far end of the peak it disappears around that range and it is just about exactly 0.5 minutes after it started.  So this is a 30 second wide peak.  Repeat for the second peptide.

It is important to keep in mind that some peaks will look different than others.  In the case of these two peptides, I expect the second one to be wider than the first.  From threshold to threshold on a 2 hour gradient it is 45s to 55s.  Why is this?  No idea.  Not a chromatographer, but I can only set one value for my dynamic exclusion.  If I'm a soloist I'm going to err for the higher value.  If I'm a two-timer (description of my terms for this here) I've got to be a little more intelligent and I might want to look at 4 or 5 more peaks to get a good idea of what my real peptide elutions peaks look like so I get the ideal number of MS/MS events.





18 Temmuz 2015 Cumartesi

Need another search algorithm? Check out ProLucid!



You know what the world needs? Another awesome search algorithm!  Prolucid is a brand new engine from the Yates lab that is described in this open access new paper. (oh...and I don't think that is the logo for it, I think that is something else...)

Why would we download it and give it a shot?


More peptides, of course!

If you don't want to check out all the math in the paper you can just download it here.

As a side note, have you seen this Wikipedia page that lists mass spec software?  It definitely misses some things but its pretty nice.

17 Temmuz 2015 Cuma

De novo sequencing workshop at CSHL


I was lucky enough to get an invite again this year to help out with the Cold Spring Harbor Labs proteomics course. Great group and great instructors (and great data coming off the Q Exactive Plus!) If you are on the outside and want to get into this field I don't know of any better program in the country. Today's highlight is Karl Clauser's half day de novo workshop.

Sad you can't take this fun course?  Don't be cause you can download the whole thing here!

Native protein extraction for tryptic digestion


When we harvest out our proteins for shotgun proteomics one of the first things we do is mess them all up.  The proteins that get to meet our trypsin are completely inactivated by reduction and alkylation and whatever other awful things we do to them.  Is there a chance this is causing problems in re-assembling the original biological picture?


No, wait, maybe we will!

Avantika Dhabaria et al., may even have a mechanism for us to figure it out!  In this new paper in JPR, they introduce us to: "A high-efficiency cellular extraction system for biological proteomics!"   Wait...I added the exclamation point.  Holy cow. There are exclamation points everywhere!  Google's analytics engine just informed me that I use those more than periods...TIME FOR MORE ELLIPSES!...

Anyway, they used acoustic pulses and all sorts of other things and compare the samples.  Is this better for us downstream?  Who knows! But if you have a mechanism where you should be investigating functional proteins....then you have a protocol!!


15 Temmuz 2015 Çarşamba

Special enrichment strategies!


What if I came to your lab and said that I needed to see every bit of every protein in a sample?  I bet you'd 1) think I was crazy and 2) would have some pretty good ideas for finding peptides that you normally miss.

We compromise because we know we have to.  Not everything sticks well to C-18.  Good peptides are below and above the mass range of our instrument settings. Molecular weight cutoff filters like we use in FASP lose some cool small signaling molecules.  Just a few examples.  I'm sure you can come up with others.

But if you really had to do it, how low could you go?  Great question, right?  And that's why we have awesome projects like the C-HPP. A brand new chapter from this endeavor is in this month's JPR (here!)

In this study they do this...


Yeah....glad it was them and not me.  That is a LOOOOONNNNGGGG day (semester?) of wet bench work, not to mention instrument run time.

How'd they do?  ~9000 proteins. Not too shabby.  But that's not even the goal.  The goal was trying to hunt down missing proteins.  Things that look like they should be expressed from what we know of the chromosome and exons/introns and what not.  And they found at least 30 of them!  One step closer to the complete proteome!