Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Mass Spectrom Rev. 2022 Sep 27;43(2):289–326. doi: 10.1002/mas.21811

TABLE 3.

Different activation techniques applied for MS/MS-based characterization of sulfopeptides

Activation method Polarity Samples analyzed Advantage Disadvantage Reference
MAD Pos Neg Model sulfopeptides Retention and localization of SO3 Low-efficiency long reaction period (~100 ms) biased cleavages next to acidic residues Cook and Jackson (2011b)
niECD Neg Model sulfopeptides Complete SO3 retention, good sequence coverage, minimal neutral loss products Low efficiency due to long reaction time (1 s) Hersberger and Håkansson (2012)
193 nm UVPD Neg Model sulfopeptides Retention and localization of SO3 Dominant neutral loss of SO3 from the precursor and charge-reduced precursor ions Robinson et al. (2014)
FRIPS Neg Model sulfopeptides Retention and localization of SO3 Not applied to complex samples Borotto et al. (2018)
ETciD Pos Model sulfopeptides spiked into serum digest at 1:200, 1:1200, 1:2000 (w/w) Positive mode is adaptable to existing workflows, retention and localization of SO3 Poor sensitivity of very acidic sulfopeptides in positive mode G. Chen et al. (2018)
HAD Neg Model sulfopeptides and bovine fibrinogen digest Identified a sulfopeptide from fibrinogen digest using LC-MS/MS No charge reduced precursor Low efficiency long reaction/accumulation time (1 min) Asakawa et al. (2019)