Influence of Sulfolane on ESI-MS Measurements of Protein–Ligand Affinities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of an investigation into the influence of sulfolane, a commonly used supercharging agent, on electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) measurements of protein-ligand affinities are described. Binding measurements carried out on four protein-carbohydrate complexes, lysozyme with β-D-GlcNAc-(1→4)-β-D-GlcNAc-(1→4)-β-D-GlcNAc-(1→4)-D-GlcNAc, a single chain variable fragment and α-D-Gal-(1→2)-[α-D-Abe-(1→3)]-α-D-Man-OCH3, cholera toxin B subunit homopentamer with β-D-Gal-(1→3)-β-D-GalNAc-(1→4)[α-D-Neu5Ac-(2→3)]-β-D-Gal-(1→4)-β-D-Glc, and a fragment of galectin 3 and α-L-Fuc-(1→2)-β-D-Gal-(1→3)-β-D-GlcNAc-(1→3)-β-D-Gal-(1→4)-β-D-Glc, revealed that sulfolane generally reduces the apparent (as measured by ESI-MS) protein-ligand affinities. To establish the origin of this effect, a detailed study was undertaken using the lysozyme-tetrasaccharide interaction as a model system. Measurements carried out using isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC), circular dichroism, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopies reveal that sulfolane reduces the binding affinity in solution but does not cause any significant change in the higher order structure of lysozyme or to the intermolecular interactions. These observations confirm that changes to the structure of lysozyme in bulk solution are not responsible for the supercharging effect induced by sulfolane. Moreover, the agreement between the ESI-MS and ITC-derived affinities indicates that there is no dissociation of the complex during ESI or in the gas phase (i.e., in-source dissociation). This finding suggests that supercharging of lysozyme by sulfolane is not related to protein unfolding during the ESI process. Binding measurements performed using liquid sample desorption ESI-MS revealed that protein supercharging with sulfolane can be achieved without a reduction in affinity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".