Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Dec 6.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2023 Nov 27;34(12):2625–2629. doi: 10.1021/jasms.3c00340

Determining Collisional Cross Sections from Ion Decay with Individual Ion Mass Spectrometry

Nickolas P Fisher 1, John P McGee 2, Kyle P Bowen 3, Michael Goodwin 4, Michael W Senko 5, Neil L Kelleher 6, Jared O Kafader 7
PMCID: PMC10840072  NIHMSID: NIHMS1962394  PMID: 38011219

Abstract

Collision cross section (CCS) measurements determined by ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) provide useful information about gas-phase protein structure that is complementary to mass analysis. Methods for determining CCS without a dedicated IMS system have been developed for Fourier transform mass spectrometry (FT-MS) platforms by measuring the signal decay during detection. Individual ion mass spectrometry (I2MS) provides charge detection and measures ion lifetimes across the length of an FT-MS detection event. By tracking lifetimes for entire ion populations, we demonstrate simultaneous determination of charge, mass, and CCS for proteins and complexes ranging from ~8 to ~232 kDa.

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name nihms-1962394-f0001.jpg

INTRODUCTION

Ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) measures collision cross sections (CCS) of gas-phase analytes to provide conformational information.14 Typical IMS experiments utilize drift tube, traveling wave, or trapped ion mobility in conjunction with time-of-flight mass spectrometers to measure analyte CCS and mass-to-charge ratio.5,6 Determination of biopolymer CCS has allowed interrogation of oligonucleotide structural dynamics and protein ion conformations.710 These methods have since been applied to intact protein complexes to understand protein–protein interactions and to provide orthogonal information to traditional structural biology techniques.1115 As the applications of CCS measurements have developed, the need for improved m/z resolving power has motivated the hyphenation of IMS to Fourier transform mass spectrometers (FT-MS).4,16

Recently, methods have been developed for determining protein CCS directly from FT-MS data, including FT-ICR and Orbitrap systems, without additional IMS instrumentation.1721 These methods monitor dephasing events (i.e., in the form of signal decay) that remove ions from stable orbitals during mass analysis. Determining CCS from FT-MS signal provides a unique alternative to IMS systems and opens the path for integrating CCS methods with other modes of FT-MS analysis. Though this method has been operated using ion ensembles, integration with individual ion mass spectrometry (I2MS) and thus charge detection capabilities is possible.

Individual ion characterization provides a database from which a large amount of information can be determined from each ion signal. First, the precise centroiding of individual ion isotope signals yield high-resolution m/z values.22,23 Second, the analysis of the induced current of each ion on the Orbitrap analyzer’s outer electrode yields ion charge through STORI plot analysis.24,25 Now, by utilizing the lifetime information on individual ions (i.e., when the ion can no longer be detected), decay curves may be generated from thousands of individual ions to produce decay constants for CCS calculation. Herein, we demonstrate an I2MS processing technique that maximizes the information gleaned from a single ion data set for both denatured and native analytes; we employ I2MS to determine ion charge, mass, and CCS values.

METHODS

Sample Preparation and MS Analysis.

For native analysis, carbonic anhydrase (29 kDa, UniProt: P18915, Sigma-Aldrich: C7749), enolase (93 kDa, UniProt: P00925, Sigma-Aldrich: E6126), alcohol dehydrogenase (143 kDa, UniProt: P00330, Sigma-Aldrich: A3263), pyruvate kinase (232 kDa, UniProt: P11974, Sigma-Aldrich: PKRO), and beta-galactosidase (466 kDa, UniProt: P00722, Sigma-Aldrich: G3153), all obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, were dissolved in H2O to final concentrations of 1 mg/mL and spin filtered with 100 mM ammonium acetate 10 times and H2O twice at 11 000g in 3, 10, 30, or 50 kDa Amicon Ultra centrifugal filters (Merck Millipore) based on the molecular weight of the species. After desalting, the species were diluted to 500 nM in 100 mM ammonium acetate. For denatured analysis, ubiquitin (8.6 kDa, UniProt: A0A3Q1M4K3, Sigma-Aldrich: U6253), cytochrome C (12.2 kDa, UniProt: P00004, Sigma-Aldrich: C7752), myoglobin (16.9 kDa, UniProt:P68082, Sigma-Aldrich: M5696), and carbonic anhydrase (29 kDa) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, dissolved in H2O at 1 mg/mL, and diluted to a final concentration of 1 μM in 50/50 H2O/MeOH (Fisher Scientific) with 0.1% (v/v) formic acid (Fisher Scientific).

Denatured samples were analyzed by an Orbitrap Exploris 480 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) coupled to an Ion Max source (Thermo Fisher Scientific) with a flow rate of 1.5–5 μL/min, a spray voltage between 2.5 and 3 kV, an in-source collisioninduced-dissociation (sCID) value of 0–5 V, and a source temperature of 320 °C. Trapping gas pressure was reduced between 0.02 and 0.05 arbitrary units (UHV = 2.60e–11 – 2.85e–11 mbar), and AGC was disabled to allow for fixed injection times. The instrument resolution was set to 480 000 (at m/z 200) with eFT switched off, corresponding to a 2 s transient length to monitor individual ion decay times. Native samples were analyzed by a Q Exactive Ultra High Mass Range (UHMR) mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) with a Nanoflex ion source (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and borosilicate capillary emitters (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and the commercially available Direct Mass Technology mode (DMTmode) activated. Spray voltage was maintained between 1.3 and 1.8 kV, sCID was kept between 20 and 60 V, AGC was disabled, eFT was turned off, and the source temperature was kept at 300 °C. Ion decay was induced by adjusting the trapping pressure to 1–3 arbitrary units (UHV = 3.85e–11 – 1.25e–10 mbar) and a resolution setting of 800 000 (at m/z 200) corresponding to a ~5.5 s acquisition to monitor the decay of native ions. Maximum injection times for all samples varied between 0.5 and 20 ms, and 1000 spectra were acquired in each experiment.

Data Analysis and Collision Cross Section Determination.

A depiction of how STORI information can be utilized to determine the protein charge, mass, and CCS is presented in Figure 1. Individual ion spectra were processed using the commercially available processing software STORI-board (Proteinaceous) with signal-to-noise set to 0, duration threshold set to 0, minimum lifetime set to 0, and R2 = 0.99 to maximize available ion decay information from each processed ion signal for the entire length of the detection event. Mass domain spectra were generated similarly with signal-to-noise set to 3, duration threshold set to 0.42, and R2 = 0.99. In-house software developed in MATLAB 2021b and Python 3.11 were used to track ion decay across the duration of the measurement by binning ions by lifetime in 10.5 and 4.02 ms bins for native and denatured analyses, respectively. Binned ions were selected by filtering ions by m/z to track specific charge states and by slope to remove multi-ion events.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Analysis of individual ion signals by STORI plot analysis to determine charge assignment, mass distributions (orange trace and inset), and precise ion signal decay information (blue trace and inset) for the CCS calculation.

Decay profiles for each ion signal were subject to truncation on both the onset and termination of the STORI collection. I2MS analysis relies on FT-MS signal induced by singular orbiting ions at unique frequency (or m/z) values. As a result, ion signals must be observed for long enough to become differentiable from instrument background noise.24 The amount of time it takes for a real ion signal to be differentiated from background noise is related to its charge value and the length of survival within the acquisition event; keeping the survival time constant, an ion with higher charge induces a larger signal and therefore is differentiated from noise more quickly (higher signal-to-noise ratio). The “noise band” prevents the collection of ion information before the signal is confidently detected, so ion decay that occurs before the ion is differentiated cannot be utilized for CCS calculation. Additionally, close to the termination of the acquisition event, any remaining ions must be ejected from the Orbitrap analyzer to prepare for the next acquisition event. Consequently, ion deaths that are not related to neutral gas collisions occur near the end of the acquisition period. Decay profiles for native and denatured protein ions were ultimately sampled from 1 to 4.5 and 0.5–1.75 s, respectively. Sampled decay profiles were then log-transformed, and decay constants were determined from the slope of the linear fit. Supplemental Figure S1 illustrates this thresholding process and its effect on the linear regressions used to extract decay constants for CCS determination. Supplemental Figure S2 shows log-transformed charge state decay plots for two proteins of interest. Log-transformed decay plots typically yield R2 > 0.99 for abundant charge states.

CCS=cLfzng (1)

Denatured CCS were determined using eq 1 (described by Sanders et al.18), where c is the decay constant (1/s), L is the average path length of the ion during one oscillation (m), fz is the frequency of the ion (Hz), and ng, the density of gas molecules, was determined for denatured analytes by calibrating with the ubiquitin 9+ charge state as previously described and by the ideal gas law for native analytes.1820 The equations for converting from m/z to frequency for both instruments used are available in Supplemental Scheme 1.

correctedCCS=uncorrectedCCS1(Ecm*9.6+223.24100) (2)

Native CCS were determined using the collision energy correction in eq 2 as previously described by James et al.20 The center of mass collision energy (Ecm) for a protein charge state is used to estimate the percent difference between the Orbitrap CCS measurements and IMS CCS measurements to correct values from eq 1. Native CCS were ultimately calculated by weighted average using the charge state CCS and charge state ion count as the literature shows that native protein CCS does not change significantly between charge states.5,1214

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

After sampling, decay constants are extracted from the population decay plots. Figure 2a shows population decay curves for three (+22, +25, and +28) exemplary denatured carbonic anhydrase charge states. This trend is consistent with prior IMS and Orbitrap CCS findings, which have shown that denatured protein ion CCS increase with charge due to additional Coulombic repulsion between the charged sites.18,19,2628 Supplemental Figure S3 validates that this trend holds across all denatured protein charge states analyzed in this study. Figure 2b demonstrates a linear decay rate increase across charge state distributions for ubiquitin, cytochrome C, myoglobin, and carbonic anhydrase. In addition, the overall decay values between these denatured proteins of increasing mass follow a linear trend, allowing CCS determination for protein analytes of varied mass.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Decay plots for denatured carbonic anhydrase and extracted decay constants for all of the denatured species studied. I2MS-based Orbitrap CCS determination enables the simultaneous tracking of multiple carbonic anhydrase charge states, whose populations decay at different rates (a). Extracted decay constants for denatured ubiquitin (UB), cytochrome C (CY), myoglobin (MY), and carbonic anhydrase (CA) were plotted against charge (b).

Although the CCS determined for denatured proteins increase linearly across charge states and mass ranges, proteins that retain their native conformations in the gas phase have been observed to deviate from this trend. Dissociation or dephasing events for denatured proteins typically occur after an ion collides with a single gas molecule, but native proteins may endure many more collisions. This results in underestimated CCS by eq 1, and the extracted CCS values for native proteins require additional correction by eq 2.20 After calculating raw CCS values for native proteins, the percent deviation between the Orbitrap CCS and IMS CCS values is plotted in Supplemental Figure S4 to determine the Ecm correction factor in eq 2. Charge state CCS values were then weighted by the number of ions collected for each charge state and averaged together as prior literature suggests native protein CCS does not change significantly across the native charge state distribution.5,1214 Figure 3 demonstrates that CCS values determined from I2MS data show strong agreement with IMS values for both denatured and postcorrection native proteins. Tabulated values for denatured proteins may be found in Supplemental Table S1, and values for native proteins may be found in Supplemental Table S2 containing exact values for I2MS determined CCS and percent deviation from known IMS CCS values.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

I2MS analysis provides the determination of analyte charge, mass, and CCS for both denatured and native protein analytes. Orbitrap CCS for native carbonic anhydrase (nCA), enolase dimer (nEN), alcohol dehydrogenase (nAD), pyruvate kinase (nPK), and beta-galactosidase (nBG) are represented as weighted averages. Error bars represent one standard deviation for the CCS determined from replicate measurements (n = 3). The nBG CCS value (n = 1) in the bottom right of the plot is provided to illustrate the limitations for accurately determining increasingly large protein CCS using the correction scheme in eq 2.

The reduced decay observed for native protein ions makes CCS determination by decay analysis challenging, requiring the initial determination of the correction factor, as shown in eq 2. The retention of globular structure for native proteins reduces CCS in comparison to denatured counterparts, resulting in a higher mean free path and less frequent neutral gas collisions,29 which may contribute to this observed difference. However, for native and denatured proteins of comparable CCS, such as native alcohol dehydrogenase and denatured carbonic anhydrase, there remains a discrepancy in decay. This discrepancy may be exacerbated by the distribution of collisional energy across the additional degrees of freedom afforded by globular protein structures, thereby reducing the rate of dissociation compared to a denatured protein with an extended structure.30 Megadalton-sized particles have been shown to primarily undergo desolvation rather than ion dissociation when mass analyzed for extended periods of time, suggesting that these large complexes are generally unaffected by collisions with nitrogen gas.31 While the proteins analyzed in this study did not exhibit frequency shifting, their general resistance to decay is similar to that exhibited by these other large globular analytes. Frequency shifts have mostly been observed with large, native complexes over 1 MDa.31 These considerations suggest that CCS determination by signal decay analysis may not be practical for large globular analytes. Alternative methods that measure the change in ion velocity have been shown to provide measurements of ion mobility, but extracting CCS is challenging due to the varied ion velocities within the trap.32

As shown in Figure 3, calculating the CCS for increasingly large analytes like beta-galactosidase becomes impossible with this correction scheme. Supplemental Figure S5 further illustrates the loss of linearity in the correction model for beta-galactosidase, where each charge state returns a CCS percent difference of ~98%. The reduced decay for large analytes yields extremely low CCS values in eq 1, so the absolute difference between the known CCS determined by IMS and the CCS determined by signal decay analysis becomes too large to accurately correct on a relative basis, resulting in nonsensical values returned by eq 2. The core assumption that Orbitrap CCS values linearly deviate from known IMS CCS breaks down for complexes larger than ~232 kDa, ultimately plateauing near 100% without additional space to differentiate complexes with increasingly large CCS. Though the prospect of determining CCS for any native-like analyte by Orbitrap signal decay analysis is desirable, a more inclusive model that can effectively determine CCS across any mass range without additional correction is required for a practical approach to this type of analysis. Although outside the scope of this manuscript, future work will focus on the development of a model that accounts for collisions that do not directly lead to decay.

Besides providing CCS values that agree with values determined by IMS, I2MS also provides a detailed analysis of the ion charge and subsequent determination of mass. Isotopic resolution is readily achieved for all proteins besides alcohol dehydrogenase and pyruvate kinase in Figure 3 and could be achieved for larger protein complexes by extending the acquisition time to increase the number of ions collected.23 The Ecm correction factor determined herein showed stability over the course of the study (~8 months), which is consistent with the correction factor developed by James et al.20 This approach may also be applied to previously collected data using DMTmode if sufficient ion decay was observed. Determining CCS by I2MS provides an orthogonal measurement that may be extracted from I2MS data sets without increasing the experimental time required, allowing for more detailed characterization of proteins and protein complexes with Orbitrap mass spectrometers.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of individual ion time domain data to calculate CCS values maximizes the information that can be extracted from a single I2MS data set. I2MS-driven CCS of denatured proteins shows strong agreement with CCS determined previously by IMS, while native protein CCS determined using the Ecm correction strategy and weighted charge state averages provide CCS values at high m/z regimes. Integrating I2MS with established Orbitrap CCS determination strategies provides charge, mass, and CCS values for proteins and complexes weighing ~8 kDa to 232 kDa within a single experiment for targeted studies analyzing one proteoform or global analysis of complex proteoform mixtures.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Figures and Tables

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded by the National Institute of Health under a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences P41 GM108569 (NLK); Walder Foundation grant number SCI16; the NIH Office of Director award S10 OD025194; the Northwestern Medicine Dr. Michael M. Abecassis Transplant Innovation Endowment Grant; NCI CCSG P30 CA060553 (awarded to the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center). Further support from an F31 Fellowship to JPM (F31 AG069456) is acknowledged.

Footnotes

Complete contact information is available at: https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/jasms.3c00340

Supporting Information

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jasms.3c00340.

Additional equations, tabulated results, and illustrated examples of decay sampling and CCS correction: m/z to frequency conversions for the Orbitrap UHMR and Exploris 480 systems, illustration of decay plot sampling, decay plots for all studied denatured proteins, Ecm correction factor used in this study, and tables containing numeric results for all denatured and native proteins (PDF)

The authors declare the following competing financial interest(s): NLK and JOK are involved with I2MS technology currently being commercialized by Thermo Fisher Scientific. KPB, MG, and MWS are employees of Thermo Fisher Scientific.

Contributor Information

Nickolas P. Fisher, Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, the Chemistry of Life Processes Institute, the Proteomics Center of Excellence at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States;

John P. McGee, Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, the Chemistry of Life Processes Institute, the Proteomics Center of Excellence at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States;

Kyle P. Bowen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, California 95134, United States;

Michael Goodwin, Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, California 95134, United States.

Michael W. Senko, Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, California 95134, United States

Neil L. Kelleher, Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, the Chemistry of Life Processes Institute, the Proteomics Center of Excellence at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States;

Jared O. Kafader, Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, the Chemistry of Life Processes Institute, the Proteomics Center of Excellence at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States;

REFERENCES

  • (1).St. Louis RH; Hill HH; Eiceman GA. Ion Mobility Spectrometry in Analytical Chemistry. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem 1990, 21, 321–355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (2).Kanu AB; Dwivedi P; Tam M; Matz L; Hill HH Jr. Ion Mobility–Mass Spectrometry. J. Mass Spectrom 2008, 43, 1–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (3).Uetrecht C; Rose RJ; van Duijn E; Lorenzen K; Heck AJR Ion Mobility Mass Spectrometry of Proteins and Protein Assemblies. Chem. Soc. Rev, 2010, 39, 1633–1655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (4).Jurneczko E; Barran PE How Useful Is Ion Mobility Mass Spectrometry for Structural Biology? The Relationship between Protein Crystal Structures and Their Collision Cross Sections in the Gas Phase. Analyst 2011, 136, 20–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (5).McCabe JW; Mallis CS; Kocurek KI; Poltash ML; Shirzadeh M; Hebert MJ; Fan LQ; et al. First-Principles Collision Cross Section Measurements of Large Proteins and Protein Complexes. Anal. Chem 2020, 92, 11155–11163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (6).Ridgeway ME; Bleiholder C; Mann M; Park MA Trends in Trapped Ion Mobility – Mass Spectrometry Instrumentation. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem 2019, 116, 324–331. [Google Scholar]
  • (7).Gidden J; Ferzoco A; Baker ES; Bowers MT Duplex Formation and the Onset of Helicity in Poly d(CG)n Oligonucleotides in a Solvent-Free Environment. J. Am. Chem. Soc 2004, 126, 15132–15140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (8).Clemmer DE; Hudgins RR; Jarrold MF Naked Protein Conformations: Cytochrome c in the Gas Phase. J. Am. Chem. Soc 1995, 117, 10141–10142. [Google Scholar]
  • (9).Wyttenbach T; von Helden G; Bowers MT Gas-Phase Conformation of Biological Molecules: Bradykinin. J. Am. Chem. Soc 1996, 118, 8355–8364. [Google Scholar]
  • (10).Clemmer DE; Hudgins RR; Jarrold MF Naked Protein Conformations: Cytochrome c in the Gas Phase. J. Am. Chem. Soc 1995, 117, 10141–10142. [Google Scholar]
  • (11).Ruotolo BT; Benesch JLP; Sandercock AM; Hyung SJ; Robinson CV Ion Mobility–Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Large Protein Complexes. Nat. Protoc 2008, 3, 1139–1152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (12).Bush MF; Hall Z; Giles K; Hoyes J; Robinson CV; Ruotolo BT Collision Cross Sections of Proteins and Their Complexes: A Calibration Framework and Database for Gas-Phase Structural Biology. Anal. Chem 2010, 82, 9557–9565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (13).Allen SJ; Schwartz AM; Bush MF Effects of Polarity on the Structures and Charge States of Native-Like Proteins and Protein Complexes in the Gas Phase. Anal. Chem 2013, 85, 12055–12061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (14).Stiving AQ; Jones BJ; Ujma J; Giles K; Wysocki VH Collision Cross Sections of Charge-Reduced Proteins and Protein Complexes: A Database for Collision Cross Section Calibration. Anal. Chem 2020, 92, 4475–4483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (15).Zhong Y; Hyung SJ; Ruotolo BT Ion Mobility–Mass Spectrometry for Structural Proteomics. Expert Rev. Proteomics 2012, 9, 47–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (16).Poltash ML; McCabe JW; Shirzadeh M; Laganowsky M; Russell DH Native IM-Orbitrap MS: Resolving What Was Hidden. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem 2020, 124, 115533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (17).Jiang T; Chen Y; Mao L; Marshall AG; Xu W Extracting Biomolecule Collision Cross Sections from the High-Resolution FT-ICR Mass Spectral Linewidths. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys 2016, 18, 713–717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (18).Sanders JD; Grinfeld D; Aizikov K; Makarov A; Holden DD; Brodbelt JS Determination of Collision Cross-Sections of Protein Ions in an Orbitrap Mass Analyzer. Anal. Chem 2018, 90, 5896–5902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (19).James VK; Sanders JD; Aizikov K; Fort KL; Grinfeld D; Makarov A; Brodbelt JS Advancing Orbitrap Measurements of Collision Cross Sections to Multiple Species for Broad Applications. Anal. Chem 2022, 94, 15613–15620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (20).James VK; Sanders JD; Aizikov K; Fort KL; Grinfeld D; Makarov A; Brodbelt JS Expanding Orbitrap Collision Cross-Section Measurements to Native Protein Applications Through Kinetic Energy and Signal Decay Analysis. Anal. Chem 2023, 95, 7656–7664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (21).Yang F; Voelkel JE; Dearden DV Collision Cross Sectional Areas from Analysis of Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Line Width: A New Method for Characterizing Molecular Structure. Anal. Chem 2012, 84, 4851–4857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (22).Kafader JO; Melani RD; Senko MW; Makarov AA; Kelleher NL; Compton PD Measurement of Individual Ions Sharply Increases the Resolution of Orbitrap Mass Spectra of Proteins. Anal. Chem 2019, 91, 2776–2783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (23).McGee JP; Melani RD; Yip PF; Senko MW; Compton PD; Kafader JO; Kelleher NL Isotopic Resolution of Protein Complexes up to 466 KDa Using Individual Ion Mass Spectrometry. Anal. Chem 2021, 93, 2723–2727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (24).Kafader JO; Beu SC; Early BP; Melani RD; Durbin KR; Zabrouskov V; Makarov AA; et al. STORI Plots Enable Accurate Tracking of Individual Ion Signals. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom 2019, 30, 2200–2203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (25).Kafader JO; Melani RD; Durbin KR; Ikwuagwu B; Early BP; Fellers RT; Beu SC; et al. Multiplexed Mass Spectrometry of Individual Ions Improves Measurement of Proteo-forms and Their Complexes. Nat. Methods 2020, 17, 391–394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (26).May JC; Jurneczko E; Stow SM; Kratochvil I; Kalkhof S; McLean JA Conformational Landscapes of Ubiquitin, Cytochrome c, and Myoglobin: Uniform Field Ion Mobility Measurements in Helium and Nitrogen Drift Gas. Int.l J. Mass Spectrom 2018, 427, 79–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (27).Covey T; Douglas DJ Collision Cross Sections for Protein Ions. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom 1993, 4, 616–623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (28).Mortensen DN; Susa AC; Williams ER Collisional Cross-Sections with T-Wave Ion Mobility Spectrometry without Experimental Calibration. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom 2017, 28, 1282–1292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (29).Kafader JO; Melani RD; Schachner LF; Ives AN; Patrie SM; Kelleher NL; Compton PD Native vs Denatured: An in Depth Investigation of Charge State and Isotope Distributions. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom 2020, 31, 574–581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (30).Zhou M; Lantz C; Brown KA; Ge Y; Paša-Tolić L; Loo JA; Lermyte F. Higher-Order Structural Characterisation of Native Proteins and Complexes by Top-down Mass Spectrometry. Chem. Sci 2020, 11, 12918–12936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (31).Wörner TP; Aizikov K; Snijder J; Fort KL; Makarov AA; Heck AJ R. Frequency Chasing of Individual Megadalton Ions in an Orbitrap Analyser Improves Precision of Analysis in Single-Molecule Mass Spectrometry. Nat. Chem 2022, 14, 515–522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (32).Elliott AG; Harper CC; Lin HW; Williams ER Mass, Mobility and MSn Measurements of Single Ions Using Charge Detection Mass Spectrometry. Analyst 2017, 142, 2760–2769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Figures and Tables

RESOURCES