Authors
Dattatreya Mellacheruvu, Zachary Wright, Amber L Couzens, Jean-Philippe Lambert, Nicole A St-Denis, Tuo Li, Yana V Miteva, Simon Hauri, Mihaela E Sardiu, Teck Yew Low, Vincentius A Halim, Richard D Bagshaw, Nina C Hubner, Abdallah Al-Hakim, Annie Bouchard, Denis Faubert, Damian Fermin, Wade H Dunham, Marilyn Goudreault, Zhen-Yuan Lin, Beatriz Gonzalez Badillo, Tony Pawson, Daniel Durocher, Benoit Coulombe, Ruedi Aebersold, Giulio Superti-Furga, Jacques Colinge, Albert JR Heck, Hyungwon Choi, Matthias Gstaiger, Shabaz Mohammed, Ileana M Cristea, Keiryn L Bennett, Mike P Washburn, Brian Raught, Rob M Ewing, Anne-Claude Gingras, Alexey I Nesvizhskii
Publication date
2013/8
Journal
Nature methods
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
730-736
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group US
Description
Affinity purification coupled with mass spectrometry (AP-MS) is a widely used approach for the identification of protein-protein interactions. However, for any given protein of interest, determining which of the identified polypeptides represent bona fide interactors versus those that are background contaminants (for example, proteins that interact with the solid-phase support, affinity reagent or epitope tag) is a challenging task. The standard approach is to identify nonspecific interactions using one or more negative-control purifications, but many small-scale AP-MS studies do not capture a complete, accurate background protein set when available controls are limited. Fortunately, negative controls are largely bait independent. Hence, aggregating negative controls from multiple AP-MS studies can increase coverage and improve the characterization of background associated with a given experimental protocol. Here we …
Total citations
20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202495811213714316016720819522219194
Scholar articles