
==== Front
Beilstein J Org Chem
Beilstein J Org Chem
Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry
1860-5397
Beilstein-Institut Trakehner Str. 7-9, 60487 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

10.3762/bjoc.20.199
Review
Chemistry
Organic Chemistry
Improved deconvolution of natural products’ protein targets using diagnostic ions from chemical proteomics linkers
Wiest Andreas https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2525-6304
1
Kielkowski Pavel https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4910-6263
pavel.kielkowski@cup.lmu.de
1
Barra Lena Guest Editor
1 LMU Munich, Department of Chemistry, Butenandtstr. 5-13, 81377 Munich, Germany https://ror.org/05591te55 https://www.isni.org/isni/000000041936973X
2024
12 9 2024
20 23232341
10.3762/bjoc.20.1995 4 2024
27 8 2024
Copyright © 2024, Wiest and Kielkowski
2024
Wiest and Kielkowski
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Beilstein-Institut Open Access License Agreement (https://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjoc/terms/terms), which is identical to the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). The reuse of material under this license requires that the author(s), source and license are credited. Third-party material in this article could be subject to other licenses (typically indicated in the credit line), and in this case, users are required to obtain permission from the license holder to reuse the material.
Identification of interactions between proteins and natural products or similar active small molecules is crucial for understanding of their mechanism of action on a molecular level. To search elusive, often labile, and low-abundant conjugates between proteins and active compounds, chemical proteomics introduces a feasible strategy that allows to enrich and detect these conjugates. Recent advances in mass spectrometry techniques and search algorithms provide unprecedented depth of proteome coverage and the possibility to detect desired modified peptides with high sensitivity. The chemical ‘linker’ connecting an active compound–protein conjugate with a detection tag is the critical component of all chemical proteomic workflows. In this review, we discuss the properties and applications of different chemical proteomics linkers with special focus on their fragmentation releasing diagnostic ions and how these may improve the confidence in identified active compound–peptide conjugates. The application of advanced search options improves the identification rates and may help to identify otherwise difficult to find interactions between active compounds and proteins, which may result from unperturbed conditions, and thus are of high physiological relevance.

chemical proteomics
diagnostic ions
mass spectrometry
target identification
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659 SFB 1309 – 325871075 Verband der Chemischen Industrie http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007215 Liebig Fellowship Boehringer Ingelheim Stiftung http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100008454 Plus 3 Programm Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004350 This work was funded by a Ph.D. fellowship from the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes to A.W. and a Liebig fellowship from VCI to P.K. We are grateful for the generous support from SFB 1309 – 325871075 (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) and Boehringer Ingelheim Foundation for Plus 3 Program granted to P.K.All costs related to the publication of this open access article were entirely funded by the Beilstein-Institut.

This article is part of the thematic issue "Young investigators in natural products chemistry, biosynthesis, and enzymology".
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Natural products (NPs) have been pivotal for the development of modern medicine accompanying humans from the prehistorical age [1]. In the last century, NPs became the main source of the active scaffolds for the pharmaceutical industry with focus on principle of one compound, one target, and one disease [2–3]. In parallel, mass spectrometry (MS) has been crucial in many areas centered around the characterization of NPs [4]. First to annotate their often complex structures using diverse fragmentation techniques [4]. Nowadays, MS is applied for the identification of NPs’ cellular protein targets via MS-based chemical proteomics [5–6]. In proteomics and its sub-field of chemical proteomics, there are two major areas of development, mass spectrometry instrumentation and bioinformatics. The MS instruments acquire the mass spectra with significantly increased throughput and sensitivity. Acquisition techniques benefit from possible multistage ion separation and isolation, and diverse fragmentation techniques. All of that is nowadays combined in one instrument to provide greater flexibility of the spectra acquisition setup [7–16]. Given the sheer amount of data acquired by LC–MS/MS runs and the high density of information content in the MS spectra, another area that experienced progressive development includes search algorithms, which aim to maximize the information obtained from the acquired mass spectra and hence to improve rate and confidence of hit identifications [17–22].

All parts of the chemical proteomics experimental procedure, the sample preparation together with MS measurement and evaluation can be performed in a streamlined or automated way using sophisticated pipelines [13,17,21,25–27]. These are highly optimized to provide the desired protein coverage and robustness. Still, the critical part of the process starts with the careful design of a NP analogue and selection of the proper biological system, which may include animal models, 3D tissue-organoids, or 2D cell culture. Depending on the project aim, which typically might be to obtain the pathologically relevant protein targets or off-targets, this may further lead to optimization of the NP scaffold to improve the desired activity. In this review, we focus on the most frequently used chemical proteomic strategies that necessitate a covalent bond between a target/off-target protein and a tested NP or a similar active small compound (Figure 1). The covalent bond serving this purpose can be formed in two distinct ways: either the NP or small compound already contains a reactive, often electrophilic group directly or the reactive group, for example a photo-crosslinker, is attached synthetically to the basic scaffold (Figure 2A) [28–32]. However, this requires a structure–activity relationship (SAR) screening to ensure that the selected NP retains biological activity after modification. The term probe is further used to unite such NPs and active compounds. Furthermore, from this perspective, the formed probe–protein covalent conjugate shares many features with naturally occurring protein post-translational modifications (PTMs) offering productive exchange of the techniques and experimental setups used in both fields (Figure 2B) [33–34]. The second prerequisite required for a probe used in a chemical proteomic study is an embedded bioorthogonal handle, for example a terminal alkyne or azide, which is able to react chemoselectively with a tag facilitating unambiguous identification by a selected analytical technique, for example LC–MS/MS (Figure 1) [35–37]. A covalent bond between a probe and a protein is needed because of denaturing conditions used during the analysis. In contrast, relying on a noncovalent interaction would result in loss of the probe–protein interaction. The bioorthogonal handle is therefore essential for an enrichment or distinction of the probe–protein complex from the background. There are two levels on which the probe conjugates can be identified: either on the protein level as intact probe–protein conjugates or on the peptide level after protease digestion as a probe–peptide conjugate (Figure 1). Although the increased speed of acquisition of mass spectra leads to ever better coverage of proteomes submitted for analysis, the throughput has not yet reached the point in which all peptides and their modified forms can be identified and characterized in a single experiment. Therefore, an enrichment of the probe-modified peptides or enhancement of the signal-to-noise ratio is necessary for successful analysis (Figure 1). The future challenge to complete the chemical proteomic analysis will include the absolute quantification of those identified NP–peptide conjugates to estimate protein occupancy (Figure 1). Although mass spectrometry-based chemical proteomics represents a robust method for the identification of NP protein targets, in some cases, the synthetic effort associated with the above-described SAR study to find a functional NP probe might outweigh the advantages of this approach. Considering a complementary strategy that does not necessitate for NP modification might be desirable. This may include hydrogen–deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (HDX-MS), limited proteolysis-coupled mass spectrometry (LiP–MS), thermal proteome profiling (TPP), cellular thermal shift assay (CETSA), affinity selection-mass spectrometry (AS-MS), co-fractionation mass spectrometry (CF-MS), or mass spectrometry integrated with equilibrium dialysis for the discovery of allostery systematically (MIDAS) [38–44]. The chemical proteomics approach and related activity-based protein profiling has been reviewed comprehensively in several reviews [45–48]. Applications of cleavable linkers, which might be considered as pioneers of MS fragmentation-based platforms to search peptide-linker remainders, were reviewed thoroughly as well [49–51]. Recent advances in mass spectrometers technology and analysis pipelines enable to obtain more information from already established workflows, because they are becoming practically feasible only now. These will be discussed further in this review. We primarily focus on the linkers utilized for enrichment and identification of the probe–protein conjugates resembling probe–protein interaction in native conditions in living cells. Taken together, the linkers used in chemical proteomics workflows are applied broadly in many research areas including screening of fragment libraries, covalent modifiers, protein PTMs, protein–protein interactions, protein–nucleic acid interactions, and indeed NP–protein interactions, but they share many common features, which are of interest of this review (Figure 2C) [5,52]. These chemical linkers bridge an imaginative gap between the crude, highly complex, and structurally diverse cell or tissue lysates containing unknown probe–protein conjugate(s) and the desired analytical output with the information about the protein and conjugate identity. Thus, the linkers have not only the function to simply connect the probe scaffold with an affinity or reporter tag, but they carry previously underappreciated features enhancing the capabilities of nowadays mass spectrometric hardware and bioinformatic software tools.

Figure 1 Overall chemical proteomics strategy to identify protein targets of natural products (NPs) and similar active small compounds. The example protein (blue) is an AlphaFold v2.0-generated prediction of bovine serum albumin (BSA) [23–24].

Figure 2 A) Design of mostly used photo-crosslinking groups. B) Mass spectrometry properties of proteins PTMs, which relate to probe–protein conjugates. C) General concept utilizing linkers to improve searches for protein–probe interactions.

Review

Principles of chemical proteomics workflows

The linker connects the affinity or reporter tag to the probe–protein conjugate to offer several principally different analytical pathways (Figure 3) [53–54]. Although chemical proteomics protocols may have many steps and operations in common, there is a great variability in how these individual steps are arranged into a workflow (Figure 3). The important aspect of any chemical proteomics study is the efficient coupling between the probe–protein conjugate and the selected linker bearing an affinity or reporter tag. To carry out this bioorthogonal reaction well-known chemistries were developed including traceless Staudinger ligation, Cu-catalyzed azide–alkyne cycloaddition (CuAAC), strain-promoted azide–alkyne cycloaddition (SPAAC), inverse electron-demand Diels–Alder reaction (IEDDA), and recently, azomethine imine (AMIs)–isonitrile ligation [37,55–60]. The kinetics, chemoselectivity, stability, and steric demand of the bioorthogonal tag attached on the probe are decisive factors during the selection procedure [61–62]. The most commonly used strategy is CuAAC due to its rapid reaction kinetics, robustness, and relatively small steric hindrance of the terminal alkyne, which is usually attached to the probe core scaffold to form an alkyne probe [5,63]. Once the covalent bond between the probe and protein is formed, the cells are lysed, and the probe–protein conjugates are reacted via CuAAC with an azide tag. While the CuAAC has been employed in various studies and has had large impact on many biological discoveries, an unspecific reactivity was often reported [54,64]. Recently, we described this background-forming reaction, which is based on an interrupted CuAAC mechanism [65]. The thiotriazole product of this reaction, which is indistinguishable in the protein-level downstream analysis, is formed by coupling between protein free thiol groups and the triazole–copper adduct (Figure 4). However, its formation can be avoided by eliminating the free alkyne probe from the CuAAC reaction mixture or by increasing the concentration of the reducing agent such as tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP). The reversed chemical proteomics approach in which the azide probe and alkyne tag are used suffers from similar unspecific reactivity of the terminal alkyne with free thiols, including the protein cysteines reacting to thioalkyne conjugates [66–67]. This is caused by the relatively high concentration of the alkyne tag which is used to accelerate the reaction.

Figure 3 Direct and indirect approach to identify protein targets and representative chemical proteomics workflow visualizing the main steps; cells incubation with the probe, bioorthogonal reaction between probe–protein conjugates and a tag followed by analysis of those labeled proteins.

Figure 4 Products of the CuAAC side reactions.

The chemical proteomics workflows can be differentiated based on their read out, which can be done on the protein or peptide level (Figure 1). The protein-level identification leads to determination of protein(s) interacting with the probe. This might be the more straightforward approach as it requires smaller amounts of protein to begin with and typically the protein identification relies on standard and well-established peptide fragmentation used in the standard MS-based proteomics. Furthermore, the advantage of significantly improved data completeness using the data-independent acquisition (DIA), which in comparison to the previously applied data-dependent acquisition (DDA), achieves a higher number of protein identifications in relatively shorter time (Figure 5A) [68–69]. The mass spectra can be searched by standard proteomics search engines incorporated into freely available tools such as FragPipe platform, MaxQuant, and DIA-NN [17–1820,70]. However, the probe-modified peptide and amino acid remain unknown. In contrast, the peptide-level identification is focused on the characterization of the actual probe-modified peptides. It might be more challenging as a larger protein amount to start with is necessary and the fragments of the probe-modified peptides may not be trivial to elucidate. The site identification is then reconstructed based on multiple rounds of searches utilizing different setups which may include labile searches with diagnostic ion mining, open and closed searches (Figure 5B–D) [19,71–74]. Exemplarily, the FragPipe workflows describing how to set up labile, open and closed searches and how we recalculated the published MS data for different linkers in this review can be downloaded from the publicly available database (PRIDE data set identifier PXD043402) [65]. Furthermore, the data processing can be adjusted and paralleled accordingly using orthogonal fragmentation techniques [75–76]. Because of the often low number of identified peptides bearing a desired modification, it is difficult to control the false-discovery rate (FDR) of the hits, and thus, the introduction of proper negative controls is of the upmost importance.

Figure 5 Search possibilities on peptide-level characterization. A) Comparison of DDA and DIA techniques. B) Diagnostic ions mining. C) Open search. D) Closed search.

Thus far, the linkers were proposed and designed to mainly facilitate the enrichment of the probe–protein or probe–peptide conjugates and their selective release after enrichment. In this review we would like to highlight the fragmentation properties of the different linkers and resulting ions as the valuable source of information steering the site identifications and increasing the confidence in those identifications in MS-based chemical proteomics.

In-gel chemical proteomics

The detection of the probe–protein conjugate(s) is based on the enhanced signal stemming from the probe–protein conjugate above the background from total protein present in the lysate. The detection can be done in several different ways. To obtain an overview of how many proteins are labeled in total and what is the intensity of the labeling, the probe–protein–tag conjugates are separated on sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel (SDS-PAGE) and visualized by in-gel fluorescence scanning (Figure 6A). In this approach the tag is a suitable fluorophore. Previously, during an introduction period of a chemical proteomics workflow of activity-based protein profiling (ABPP), the resulting fluorescent bands might be simply cut out from the gel and subjected to MS analysis to identify the labeled proteins [77–78]. The in-gel analysis is often used for target validation with corresponding protein mutants or knockout cell lines, with loss of the identified probe–protein interaction leading to disappearance of the fluorescence band from the SDS-PAGE. This approach also accounts for the protein-level identification; the exact modification site remains unknown. Here we show an example of the most used and commercially available rhodamine-derived dye (TAMRA-azide, Figure 6A). The bioorthogonal reaction between probe-labeled proteins and the TAMRA-azide yields a mixture of labeled and unlabeled proteins. The proteins are then separated on SDS-PAGE by their molecular weight and fluorescence of the labeled proteins is recorded (Figure 6A). Due to the high sensitivity of fluorescence read-out, this allows to identify protein labeling occurring already at sub-stoichiometric ratios. However, by in-gel analysis, it is not possible to quantify the extent of labeled proteins. To ensure the fidelity of the bioorthogonal reaction a control experiment in which the probe treatment is replaced by a plain solvent used to prepare the stock solution of the probe is necessary to identify any unspecific bands stemming from side reactivity of the azide–protein conjugate. In case a photo-crosslinker is used, another control experiment needs to be included, in which the cells/lysate are treated with the probe but not UV-irradiated. The non-covalent probe–protein interactions are not detected because of the denaturing conditions of the SDS-PAGE. Alternatively, the fidelity of the probe labeling can be tested by a competition experiment, in which the parent compound lacking a bioorthogonal tag is used at increasing concentration to outcompete the probe–protein interaction leading to disappearance of the fluorescent bands.

Figure 6 In-gel analysis using a tag with fluorophore (A) or via shift-assay (B).

A gel shift assay is a complementary strategy to validate the labeling of a specific protein (Figure 6B) [65,79]. The assay is based on an increased retardation of the probe-labeled protein on SDS-PAGE due to the addition of a large tag, which significantly changes the molecular weight of the given protein. The shift on the gel can be then visualized by protein-specific antibody or coomassie staining. The linkers applied to perform the gel shift assay contain a linear PEG polymer with an approximate size ranging from one to dozens of kilodaltons. The main advantage of the gel shift assay is to obtain quantitative information of the protein’s probe modification extent, considering high efficiency of the click reaction. Given the bulkiness of the PEG–azide linker, the bioorthogonal reaction needs some optimization, including increased equivalents of the linker, elevated temperature, and/or longer reaction time. The limiting factor of this approach might be the size of the target proteins, because for larger proteins it might be more challenging to obtain the desired significant difference between mobility of probe-modified and unmodified protein.

MS-based chemical proteomics without enrichment

The aim of this approach is to isolate and characterize the probe–peptide conjugate and hence to provide direct evidence of the probe–protein interaction [80]. In principle, the direct characterization of the probe–peptide conjugate can be attempted, in which the coupling of the probe–peptide conjugate with a suitable reporter tag may help to improve the detectability in an excess of probe-unmodified peptides [65,81–82]. The speed of acquisition of mass spectra of the current LC–MS/MS methods does not ultimately cover all unmodified and modified peptides resulting from the proteolytic digest of a whole proteome. In other words, the complexity of the whole proteome digest is beyond the coverage and sensitivity of today’s mass spectrometers. On the other hand, the enrichment of the probe–peptide conjugates necessitates larger amounts of starting protein and application of often time-demanding and tedious workflows. Thus, the chemical tools increasing the signal intensity of the modified peptide species over the majority of background signals are of utmost interest and may bridge the gap between an ultimate characterization of complete proteome and enrichment-based methods. There are several chemical proteomics linkers reported that improve ionization of the probe–peptide conjugates or release a reporter ion during fragmentation or both (Figure 7). The reporter ion is important as it may serve two purposes. First, it facilitates the better identification of the modified peptides by search algorithms and second, if labeled with stable isotopes, it allows for quantification of the modified probe–peptide conjugates. Inspired by tandem mass spectrometry tags (TMT-tags) Makarov et al. have developed a ‘clickable’ 2,6-dimethylpiperidine analogue, the DMP-tag, which in contrast to standardly used isotopic tags bearing the N-hydroxysuccinimide ester (NHS-ester) reacting with all primary amines of lysine side-chains, allows to selectively label the probe–protein conjugates (Figure 7A) [81,83]. The DMP-tag can be prepared in a six-steps synthesis. The higher-energy collisional dissociation (HCD) releases the characteristic reporter ion at m/z 126.1277. In case the electron-transfer dissociation (ETD) is used the DMP-tag yields the reporter ion at m/z 114.1275. Of note, although ETD is more selective towards fragmentation of the peptide backbone leaving the side-chain modifications largely intact, the generation of the fluoranthene anion used for fragmentation slows down the fragmentation process and hence decreases the total amount of fragmented peptides and throughput of the LC–MS/MS measurement. To balance the throughput and fragmentation performance, the combination of HCD and ETD can be used in a single MS measurement. In such methods ETD is only triggered by probe-specific diagnostic ions released by the faster HCD fragmentation with the aim to fragment the same parent ion again with ETD to obtain a better fragmentation spectrum [84–85]. Similar to the DMP-tag, the AzidoTMT introduced by Ma et al. contains an azide to selectively label probe–peptide conjugates, but the synthesis takes advantage of the commercially available isotopically labeled 11plex-TMT (Figure 7B) [82]. The 11plexTMT reagent is reacted in one step with 3-azido-1-propanamine to give the desired AzidoTMT linker. Furthermore, Makarov et al. developed a linker containing a sulfoxide (SOX) group, which is well-known for specific fragmentation releasing the reporter ion at m/z 179.0849 (Figure 7C) [81,86–87]. The preparation of the tag is based on a five-step synthesis. However, in comparison to the DMP-tag or AzidoTMT the release of the reporter ion from the SOX-tag has somewhat lower intensity.

Figure 7 Reporter linkers. A) DMP-tag. B) AzidoTMT tag. C) SOX-tag. D) Imidazolium tag. *A star indicates the possible introduction of stable isotopes for MS quantification.

Calle et al. designed, synthesized, and validated a series of ‘clickable’ linkers for characterization of protein O-glycosylation containing positively charged pyridinium or imidazolium residues (Figure 7D) [88]. The presence of a stable positively charged moiety in the linker has, in case of imidazolium, increased by 70–90% the relative abundance of modified peptides. In combination with release of the glycan-related oxonium ions during fragmentation, such approach may improve the coverage of modified peptides. Taken together, the ever faster and more sensitive MS instruments in recent years drastically improved the proteome coverage of the LC–MS/MS methods to provide great insight into proteomes and enabled direct characterization of abundant modified proteins. The linkers releasing the reporter ion may serve as an interesting tool during transition from enrichment-based methods to direct ‘linker-free’ identification MS methods of desired probe–peptide conjugates.

Enrichment-based chemical proteomics

The pursuit to decrease the complexity of proteomic samples led to development of numerous enrichment strategies using a variety of linkers as outlined below. The enrichment of the probe–protein or probe–peptide conjugates reduces the number of total peptides to be resolved by LC–MS/MS. The most common strategy to identify proteins interacting with a probe either directly in living cells or in cell lysates utilizes a linker with biotin (Figure 8A). This approach led for example to the identification of protein targets of the synthetic pyrethrin analogues cerulenin, hypothemicin, fimbrolide, and eupalmerin acetate [89–92]. The biotin forms a tight non-covalent complex with a glycoprotein called avidin or its non-glycosylated form streptavidin, from which the latter shows less of an unspecific protein–protein interaction due to missing glycan groups [93]. Streptavidin-coated paramagnetic agarose or acrylamide beads are used for pull-down of the probe-modified proteins [94]. The biotin-containing linker is introduced into the probe–protein conjugate via a selective bioorthogonal reaction. The main advantage of the biotin-based linkers is the possibility to apply stringent wash steps, due to the almost irreversible non-covalent complex formation between biotin and streptavidin (Kd ≈ 1 × 10−14 M) in aqueous solution. Another advantage is that after the enrichment and proteolytic digestion of each of the enriched proteins likely releases several suitable peptides for LC–MS/MS analysis resulting in a reliable identification of protein targets and relative quantification [95–97]. On the protein level, the biotin–azide linker was used to determine many probe–protein targets [92,98–100]. However, the modified probe–peptide conjugates linked with biotin mainly remain in complex with the streptavidin beads, which restricts the site identification [101]. The difference in protein intensities from the probe and control experiments can be visualized using a volcano plot or a waterfall plot and is also referred as protein-level experiment. Next, the elution of a desired biotin–probe–peptide conjugate can be carried out by high percentage of organic solvent, for example 80% acetonitrile. Yan et al. showed that such biotin–probe–peptides afforded characteristic fragmentation of the biotin linker, thus improving the identification of probe–peptide conjugates in cysteine-profiling experiments [102]. The biotin linker yields after HCD fragmentation a set of diagnostic ions including the prominent oxonium-biotin and dehydrobiotin ions (Figure 8B). Importantly, the oxonium-biotin fragment was found in more than 99% of the assigned spectra, so-called peptide spectrum matches (PSMs). The second most frequent diagnostic ion was the dehydrobiotin ion with occurrence in >80% of the spectra. The detailed list of all identified biotin and cysteine reactive probe related ions can be found in reference [102]. A plethora of biotin–azide linkers is commercially available, with the main difference lying in the length or presence of the PEG moiety, which has likely only minimal influence on the diagnostic peaks’ generation. Taken together, consideration of the oxonium-biotin and dehydrobiotin diagnostic ions increases the confidence in the identified probe–peptide conjugates.

Figure 8 Biotin and desthiobition-based sample linkers and their associated diagnostic peaks. A) Structure of the biotin–azide linker and the CuAAC product. B) Diagnostic peaks derived from the biotin–azide linker. C) Structure of the desthiobiotin–PEG–azide linker and the corresponding CuAAC product. D) Diagnostic peaks resulting from fragmentation of the desthiobiotin–PEG–azide linker. E) Probe-specific diagnostic peaks after fragmentation of probe–peptide conjugates enriched using the desthiobiotin–PEG–azide linker.

Next, selective elution of the probe–peptide conjugates may be carried out using desthiobiotin (DTB) as affinity tag instead of biotin [103–104]. The DTB-tag allows to elute probe–peptide–DTB conjugates from streptavidin beads using a mixture of water, organic solvent – typically acetonitrile (ACN) – and an acid such as formic acid. The desthiobiotin–azide (DTB–azide) linker still possesses strong binding to streptavidin (Kd ≈ 1 × 10−11 M), but it can be released by mild washing conditions with organic solvent and low pH (Figure 8C) [105–106]. Similarly, desthiobiotin releases upon HCD fragmentation a set of characteristic diagnostic ions including oxonium-desthiobiotin, dehydrodesthiobiotin, and several other ions containing the PEG moiety (Figure 8D). The occurrence of these diagnostic ions ranges from >90% for oxonium-desthiobiotin and dehydrobiotin to ≈60% for the other presented diagnostic ions. During the studies of CuAAC side reactivity Wiest et al. proceeded with detailed characterization of desthiobition-linker-derived diagnostic ions and probe-specific fragments [65]. The latter are relevant for the discovery of probe–peptide conjugates as the fragments contain both desthiobiotin and probe-derived moieties (Figure 8E) [65]. In the study several small molecule probes were used including propargylamine, a glutamine derivative, N6-propargyladenosine and a tyrosine derivative to document the thiotriazole formation during CuAAC. The two selected examples of adenosine and glutamine-derived diagnostic ions are shown in Figure 8E. Since, in this case, the cysteine thiols were derivatized and the cysteine C–S bond was previously described to be susceptible to fragmentation, the fragments containing the thiol provide the information on the structure of the modified amino acid side chain [107–108]. Although the study was focused on the characterization of the side-products of CuAAC, it shares multiple features applicable for determination of NP–peptide conjugates in complex proteomic samples.

Recently, an isoDTB linker was introduced, which is synthetically easily accessible and now as well commercially available. IsoDTB combines the desthiobiotin moiety and isotopically labeled residues for direct quantification (Figure 9A) [103]. Thus far, the linker has been mainly utilized for profiling of reactive cysteines. For this review the labile and open search of the data acquired by Zanon et al. using the FragPipe suite led to identification of several anticipated diagnostic ions, including the b-type ions from fragmented peptide bonds of the linker (Figure 9A). The study builds on the reactivity of free cysteine thiols, which are reacted on the proteome-wide level with iodoacetamide-alkyne via SN reaction. Similar as for the above-described DTB-linker, several probe-derived ions were observed (Figure 9B). The isoDTB-linker’s availability in ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ form together with highly optimized protocols and direct presets in MSFragger for streamlined analysis make this linker a feasible choice for site identifications of probe–peptide conjugates.

Figure 9 A) isoDTB linker and probe-specific diagnostic ions (B). *A star indicates the possible introduction of stable isotopes for MS quantification.

An alternative approach to selectively release the probe–peptide conjugates after the affinity enrichment is the utilization of a cleavable linker [52]. From the plethora of cleavable linkers reviewed by Beard et al., we focus here on selected few, which were used in recent studies with sufficient resolution and depth [52]. In general, cleavable linkers can be divided into two main groups based on the cleavage mechanism, which can be either enzymatic or chemical. The advantage of cleavable linkers is the possibility to combine stringent enrichment, ensured by the biotin–streptavidin complex, with the selective release of modified peptide–probe conjugates afterwards. The frequently used enzymatically cleaved TEV-linker contains a peptide sequence, which is recognized by Tobacco Etch Virus nuclear inclusion A peptidase, which is orthogonal to trypsin and chymotrypsin cleavage – two most commonly used proteases [109]. Multiple modifications to the peptide sequence and linker structure were consecutively introduced by the Cravatt lab including the ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ derivatives containing stable isotopes enabling the quantification and direct comparison between the conditions [80]. The disadvantage of the TEV-linker might be the multistep synthesis. The labile and open search of the publicly available data revealed a set of diagnostic ions, both derived from the linker and the probe (Figure 10A and B). The structural motives of the diagnostic ions corroborate the above-described findings. The fragmentation of the triazole ring leaving the primary amine and b-ion resulting from the fragmentation of the TEV-recognition peptide sequence. The chemical cleavage of the linker to release probe–peptide conjugates is achieved mainly by the change of the pH or via reducing conditions to release acid, base, or redox-labile parts of the linker [52]. Most recently, Wozniak et al. mapped the binding sites of a large small molecules library, which were equipped with a photo-crosslinker [110]. The study used the acid-cleavable dialkoxydiphenylsilane (DADPS) linker to release the probe–peptide conjugates (Figure 11A). The crucial advantage of the study was the introduction of a search algorithm considering generation of the chimeric spectra. The chimeric spectra may include fragmentation of multiple probe–peptide conjugates which differ only in the position of the probe–peptide covalent bond. Thus, the physicochemical properties are highly similar as well as the mass of the conjugate leading to coelution from LC and cofragmentation during MS/MS. The case study of the adamantane-based probe revealed at least five probe-derived diagnostic ions from labile search, which are summarized in Figure 11B. Next, we used the diagnostic ions in a closed search with the MaxQuant search engine. For this purpose, we set two calculation runs searching for peptides carrying a mass offset of 485.3366 on C, K, R, E, D, S, T, or H. The closed search including the diagnostic ions found ≈20% more identified peptides showing the search improvement by diagnostic ions (Figure 12). The DADPS-linker containing ‘light’ or ‘heavy’ valine can be synthetized in total nine steps [111].

Figure 10 TEV-cleavable linker structure with its characteristic diagnostic ions (A) and probe-specific diagnostic ions (B). *A star indicates the possible introduction of stable isotopes for MS quantification.

Figure 11 A) Structure of the full length DADPS linker and remaining part after cleavage. B) Diagnostic ions. *A star indicates the possible introduction of stable isotopes for MS quantification.

Figure 12 Diagnostic peaks included in the search identify higher numbers of modified PSMs and peptides using MaxQuant (A) and comparison with FragPipe (B) in case of the adamantane-based probe from the study by Wozniak et al. [110].

After the introduction of the DADPS-based linker by Szychowski et al. for the first time several interesting analogs were developed, including the shortened version described in the previous paragraph (Figure 13) [112–115]. As an interesting feature, the DADPS-linker with dibromo substitution takes advantage of the naturally occurring stable isotopes 79Br and 81Br in almost stoichiometric ratio. The predictable isotopic pattern thus introduces a searchable moiety and therefore clearly tags the MS/MS spectra derived from probe–peptide conjugates [113]. Another DADPS-based linker improves the CuAAC kinetics by using picolyl azide [115]. Together, the application of the acid-cleavable DADPS linkers is a feasible alternative to enzymatic cleavage. In particular, when considering the linker preparation, the biotin–DADPS–azide can be synthetized in only two steps [112].

Figure 13 An alternative DADPS linker.

Finally, the development of multifunctional linkers enables to combine the in-gel and MS-based analysis in one experiment [116–120]. The trifunctional linker AzKTB (Figure 14) was introduced by Wright et al. to study protein N-myristoylation and was later used for the identification of the natural product callyspongynic acid and zerumbone protein targets [117,121–122]. The AzKTB linker integrates biotin for affinity enrichment with a TAMRA fluorophore for in-gel analysis, a terminal azide for CuAAC to label probe–protein conjugates, and a trypsin-cleavage site, which allows to release the modified probe–peptide conjugates together with other unmodified tryptic peptides from the streptavidin beads (Figure 14). In principle, the release of modified peptides can be used for side identification given the relatively high abundance and ionization efficiency due to remaining lysine. The use of the AzTB linker is practical for swift optimization of enrichment workflows, because after the probe–protein conjugates enrichment on the streptavidin beads, the beads can be split into two portions from which one is analyzed by in-gel analysis first to determine the overall labeling and the other portion after on-beads trypsin digest is subjected to LC–MS/MS analysis. The AzKTB reagent can be synthetized by standard solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS) with overall 17% yield.

Figure 14 Chemical structure of the trifunctional trypsin cleavable AzKTB linker.

In this review we would like to also highlight the importance of deposition of the acquired MS data to publicly available depositaries with a clear description of the sample preparation protocol. This may allow the community to research the data and apply the ever-improving search algorithms to find a new features and probe–protein interactions.

Automatization of chemical proteomics workflows

The increased throughput and less hands-on time during the chemical proteomics workflows led recently to a number of protocols, which either multiplicate the sample preparation or scale down and partially automatize the protocol or both. The standard mass spectrometry-based chemical proteomics workflow requires up to 1 mg of total protein, acetone protein precipitation after the ‘click’ reaction to remove the excess of the biotin-containing reagent, desalting of the peptides after on-beads digest, and concentration of peptides either by freeze-drying or on SpeedVac. This standard protocol is typically carried out in individual 1.5 mL tubes which need to be handled separately. Indeed, the standard protocol would span over several days with a limited number of samples possibly processed in one batch. With the advancement of LC–MS/MS sensitivity and speed of spectra acquisition, it is possible now to scale-down the chemical proteomics protocol. There are several approaches with significantly increased throughput available for either probe–peptide conjugates [123–124] or probe–proteins enrichment [94]. The underlying and unifying advantage of these protocols is the use of a mixture of hydrophilic and lipophilic carboxylate-coated magnetic beads to replace the protein acetone precipitation after CuAAC. After the ‘click’ between the probe–protein conjugates and affinity tag in cell lysate, the proteins are loaded onto the carboxylate magnetic beads and aggregated with the beads by addition of an organic solvent, for example ethanol or acetonitrile. The subsequent washes of the carboxylate magnetic beads with proteins by an organic solvent–water mixture or organic solvent alone cleans the probe–protein conjugates from excess of ‘click’ reagents and non-protein components present in lysates with high efficiency. The fast sequence of the wash steps is performed on a magnet separating the magnetic beads with aggregated proteins from the wash solution. Next, the proteins can be proteolytically cleaved on-beads or directly eluted for further enrichment on an affinity resin. Due to the easy handling of the magnetic beads and separation for the liquid phase using the magnet, the protocol utilizing the carboxylate magnetic beads was first developed for whole proteome proteomics, so called single-pot solid-phase enhanced sample preparation (SP3) [125–126]. The workflow can be scaled down readily to low protein amounts and small volumes compatible with the 96 and 384-well plate format fitting to liquid handling robots. An automatization of the protocol indeed lowers the necessary hands-on time and improves robustness and reproducibility of the protocol. However, even the scale-down of the protocol into microplates with manual pipetting can significantly parallelize and thus speed up the process.

Conclusion

In the future, the aim will be to unlock MS-based chemical proteomic workflows, which will obscure the necessity of an enrichment step and thus will lead to significantly simplified and accelerated characterization of important and desired probe–protein interactions. Until then, the transfer of expertise and techniques from different areas of the chemical proteomic field have the potential to facilitate this advancement.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable as no new data was generated or analyzed in this study.
==== Refs
1 Atanasov A G Zotchev S B Dirsch V M Orhan I E Banach M Rollinger J M Barreca D Weckwerth W Bauer R Bayer E A Nat Rev Drug Discovery 2021 20 200 216 10.1038/s41573-020-00114-z 33510482
2 Yıldırım M A Goh K-I Cusick M E Barabási A-L Vidal M Nat Biotechnol 2007 25 1119 1126 10.1038/nbt1338 17921997
3 Meissner F Geddes-McAlister J Mann M Bantscheff M Nat Rev Drug Discovery 2022 21 637 654 10.1038/s41573-022-00409-3 35351998
4 Demarque D P Crotti A E M Vessecchi R Lopes J L C Lopes N P Nat Prod Rep 2016 33 3 432 455 10.1039/c5np00073d 26673733
5 Wright M H Sieber S A Nat Prod Rep 2016 33 5 681 708 10.1039/c6np00001k 27098809
6 Fenn J B Mann M Meng C K Wong S F Whitehouse C M Science 1989 246 64 71 10.1126/science.2675315 2675315
7 Sinha A Mann M Biochemist 2020 42 5 64 69 10.1042/bio20200057
8 Jiang L Wang M Lin S Jian R Li X Chan J Dong G Fang H Robinson A E Aguet F Cell 2020 183 269 283 10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.036 32916130
9 Bekker-Jensen D B Martínez-Val A Steigerwald S Rüther P Fort K L Arrey T N Harder A Makarov A Olsen J V Mol Cell Proteomics 2020 19 716 729 10.1074/mcp.tir119.001906 32051234
10 Bian Y The M Giansanti P Mergner J Zheng R Wilhelm M Boychenko A Kuster B Anal Chem (Washington, DC, U S) 2021 93 8687 8692 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c00738
11 Bian Y Zheng R Bayer F P Wong C Chang Y-C Meng C Zolg D P Reinecke M Zecha J Wiechmann S Nat Commun 2020 11 157 10.1038/s41467-019-13973-x 31919466
12 Wang Z Mülleder M Batruch I Chelur A Textoris-Taube K Schwecke T Hartl J Causon J Castro-Perez J Demichev V eLife 2022 11 e83947 10.7554/elife.83947 36449390
13 Messner C B Demichev V Wang Z Hartl J Kustatscher G Mülleder M Ralser M Proteomics 2023 2200013 10.1002/pmic.202200013
14 Messner C B Demichev V Bloomfield N Yu J S L White M Kreidl M Egger A-S Freiwald A Ivosev G Wasim F Nat Biotechnol 2021 39 846 854 10.1038/s41587-021-00860-4 33767396
15 Hosp F Mann M Neuron 2017 96 558 571 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.09.025 29096073
16 Aebersold R Mann M Nature 2003 422 198 207 10.1038/nature01511 12634793
17 Demichev V Messner C B Vernardis S I Lilley K S Ralser M Nat Methods 2020 17 41 44 10.1038/s41592-019-0638-x 31768060
18 Yu F Teo G C Kong A T Fröhlich K Li G X Demichev V Nesvizhskii A I Nat Commun 2023 14 4154 10.1038/s41467-023-39869-5 37438352
19 Polasky D A Geiszler D J Yu F Li K Teo G C Nesvizhskii A I Mol Cell Proteomics 2023 22 100538 10.1016/j.mcpro.2023.100538 37004988
20 Kong A T Leprevost F V Avtonomov D M Mellacheruvu D Nesvizhskii A I Nat Methods 2017 14 513 520 10.1038/nmeth.4256 28394336
21 Lou R Cao Y Li S Lang X Li Y Zhang Y Shui W Nat Commun 2023 14 94 10.1038/s41467-022-35740-1 36609502
22 Sinitcyn P Hamzeiy H Salinas Soto F Itzhak D McCarthy F Wichmann C Steger M Ohmayer U Distler U Kaspar-Schoenefeld S Nat Biotechnol 2021 39 12 1563 1573 10.1038/s41587-021-00968-7 34239088
23 Jumper J Evans R Pritzel A Green T Figurnov M Ronneberger O Tunyasuvunakool K Bates R Žídek A Potapenko A Nature 2021 596 583 589 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 34265844
24 Varadi M Anyango S Deshpande M Nair S Natassia C Yordanova G Yuan D Stroe O Wood G Laydon A Nucleic Acids Res 2022 50 D1 D439 D444 10.1093/nar/gkab1061 34791371
25 Reilly L Lara E Ramos D Li Z Pantazis C B Stadler J Santiana M Roberts J Faghri F Hao Y Cells Rep Methods 2023 3 100593 10.1016/j.crmeth.2023.100593
26 Smith L M Thomas P M Shortreed M R Schaffer L V Fellers R T LeDuc R D Tucholski T Ge Y Agar J N Anderson L C Nat Methods 2019 16 939 940 10.1038/s41592-019-0573-x 31451767
27 He J-X Fei Z-C Fu L Tian C-P He F-C Chi H Yang J Nat Chem Biol 2022 18 904 912 10.1038/s41589-022-01074-8 35864333
28 Pan S Jang S-Y Wang D Liew S S Li Z Lee J-S Yao S Q Angew Chem, Int Ed 2017 56 39 11816 11821 10.1002/anie.201706076
29 Li Z Hao P Li L Tan C Y J Cheng X Chen G Y J Sze S K Shen H-M Yao S Q Angew Chem, Int Ed 2013 52 33 8551 8556 10.1002/anie.201300683
30 Boike L Henning N J Nomura D K Nat Rev Drug Discovery 2022 21 881 898 10.1038/s41573-022-00542-z 36008483
31 Kleiner P Heydenreuter W Stahl M Korotkov V S Sieber S A Angew Chem, Int Ed 2017 56 5 1396 1401 10.1002/anie.201605993
32 West A V Muncipinto G Wu H-Y Huang A C Labenski M T Jones L H Woo C M J Am Chem Soc 2021 143 6691 6700 10.1021/jacs.1c02509 33876925
33 Parker C G Pratt M R Cell 2020 180 605 632 10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.025 32059777
34 Bagdonaite I Malaker S A Polasky D A Riley N M Schjoldager K Vakhrushev S Y Halim A Aoki-Kinoshita K F Nesvizhskii A I Bertozzi C R Nat Rev Methods Primers 2022 2 48 10.1038/s43586-022-00128-4
35 Agard N J Baskin J M Prescher J A Lo A Bertozzi C R ACS Chem Biol 2006 1 644 648 10.1021/cb6003228 17175580
36 Ramil C P Lin Q Chem Commun 2013 49 11007 11022 10.1039/c3cc44272a
37 Schauenburg D Weil T Adv Sci 2024 11 2303396 10.1002/advs.202303396
38 Masson G R Burke J E Ahn N G Anand G S Borchers C Brier S Bou-Assaf G M Engen J R Englander S W Faber J Nat Methods 2019 16 595 602 10.1038/s41592-019-0459-y 31249422
39 Schopper S Kahraman A Leuenberger P Feng Y Piazza I Müller O Boersema P J Picotti P Nat Protoc 2017 12 2391 2410 10.1038/nprot.2017.100 29072706
40 Savitski M M Reinhard F B M Franken H Werner T Savitski M F Eberhard D Molina D M Jafari R Dovega R B Klaeger S Science 2014 346 1255784 10.1126/science.1255784 25278616
41 Molina D M Jafari R Ignatushchenko M Seki T Larsson E A Dan C Sreekumar L Cao Y Nordlund P Science 2013 341 84 87 10.1126/science.1233606 23828940
42 Annis D A Athanasopoulos J Curran P J Felsch J S Kalghatgi K Lee W H Nash H M Orminati J-P A Rosner K E Shipps G W Jr Int J Mass Spectrom 2004 238 2 77 83 10.1016/j.ijms.2003.11.022
43 Chan J N Y Vuckovic D Sleno L Olsen J B Pogoutse O Havugimana P Hewel J A Bajaj N Wang Y Musteata M F Mol Cell Proteomics 2012 11 M111.016642 10.1074/mcp.m111.016642
44 Hicks K G Cluntun A A Schubert H L Hackett S R Berg J A Leonard P G Ajalla Aleixo M A Zhou Y Bott A J Salvatore S R Science 2023 379 6636 996 1003 10.1126/science.abm3452 36893255
45 Rix U Superti-Furga G Nat Chem Biol 2009 5 616 624 10.1038/nchembio.216 19690537
46 Bantscheff M Scholten A Heck A J R Drug Discovery Today 2009 14 1021 1029 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.07.001 19596079
47 Leitner A Anal Chim Acta 2018 1000 2 19 10.1016/j.aca.2017.08.026 29289310
48 Fedorov I I Lineva V I Tarasova I A Gorshkov M V Biochemistry (Moscow) 2022 87 983 994 10.1134/s0006297922090103 36180990
49 Yang Y Hahne H Kuster B Verhelst S H L Mol Cell Proteomics 2013 12 237 244 10.1074/mcp.m112.021014 23028061
50 Yang Y Fonović M Verhelst S H L Methods Mol Biol (N Y, NY, U S) 2017 1491 185 203 10.1007/978-1-4939-6439-0_14
51 Ianni A D Ihling C H Vranka T Matoušek V Sinz A Iacobucci C JACS Au 2024 4 8 2936 2943 10.1021/jacsau.4c00282 39211594
52 Beard H A Korovesis D Chen S Verhelst S H L Mol Omics 2021 17 197 209 10.1039/d0mo00181c 33507200
53 Heal W P Dang T H T Tate E W Chem Soc Rev 2011 40 1 246 257 10.1039/c0cs00004c 20886146
54 Speers A E Cravatt B F Curr Protoc Chem Biol 2009 1 29 41 10.1002/9780470559277.ch090138 21701697
55 Rostovtsev V V Green L G Fokin V V Sharpless K B Angew Chem, Int Ed 2002 41 2596 2599 10.1002/1521-3773(20020715)41:14<2596::aid-anie2596>3.0.co;2-4
56 Meldal M Tornøe C W Chem Rev 2008 108 2952 3015 10.1021/cr0783479 18698735
57 Agard N J Prescher J A Bertozzi C R J Am Chem Soc 2004 126 15046 15047 10.1021/ja044996f 15547999
58 Saxon E Bertozzi C R Science 2000 287 2007 2010 10.1126/science.287.5460.2007 10720325
59 Markos A Biedermann M Heimgärtner J Schmitt A Lang K Wennemers H J Am Chem Soc 2023 145 36 19513 19517 10.1021/jacs.3c07006 37642301
60 Oliveira B L Guo Z Bernardes G J L Chem Soc Rev 2017 46 4895 4950 10.1039/c7cs00184c 28660957
61 McKay C S Finn M G Chem Biol 2014 21 1075 1101 10.1016/j.chembiol.2014.09.002 25237856
62 Prescher J A Bertozzi C R Nat Chem Biol 2005 1 13 21 10.1038/nchembio0605-13 16407987
63 Uttamapinant C Tangpeerachaikul A Grecian S Clarke S Singh U Slade P Gee K R Ting A Y Angew Chem, Int Ed 2012 51 5852 5856 10.1002/anie.201108181
64 Cutolo G Shankar S N Pratt M R Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2021 48 128260 10.1016/j.bmcl.2021.128260 34265422
65 Wiest A Kielkowski P J Am Chem Soc 2024 146 2151 2159 10.1021/jacs.3c11780 38214237
66 Yang Y Dong W Guo Y Rioux R M Green Chem 2013 15 3170 3175 10.1039/c3gc41330f
67 Yang Y Yang X Verhelst S H L Molecules 2013 18 12599 12608 10.3390/molecules181012599 24126377
68 Guo T Aebersold R Proteomics 2023 23 e2200011 10.1002/pmic.202200011 37039310
69 Messner C B Demichev V Muenzner J Aulakh S K Barthel N Röhl A Herrera-Domínguez L Egger A-S Kamrad S Hou J Cell 2023 186 9 2018 2034.e21 10.1016/j.cell.2023.03.026 37080200
70 Cox J Mann M Nat Biotechnol 2008 26 1367 1372 10.1038/nbt.1511 19029910
71 Chang H-Y Kong A T da Veiga Leprevost F Avtonomov D M Haynes S E Nesvizhskii A I J Proteome Res 2020 19 6 2511 2515 10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c00119 32338005
72 Geiszler D J Polasky D A Yu F Nesvizhskii A I Nat Commun 2023 14 4132 10.1038/s41467-023-39828-0 37438360
73 Polasky D A Yu F Teo G C Nesvizhskii A I Nat Methods 2020 17 1125 1132 10.1038/s41592-020-0967-9 33020657
74 Yu F Teo G C Kong A T Haynes S E Avtonomov D M Geiszler D J Nesvizhskii A I Nat Commun 2020 11 4065 10.1038/s41467-020-17921-y 32792501
75 Hendriks I A Larsen S C Nielsen M L Mol Cell Proteomics 2019 18 1010 1026 10.1074/mcp.tir119.001315 30798302
76 Marx H Lemeer S Schliep J E Matheron L Mohammed S Cox J Mann M Heck A J R Kuster B Nat Biotechnol 2013 31 557 564 10.1038/nbt.2585 23685481
77 Speers A E Cravatt B F Chem Biol 2004 11 535 546 10.1016/j.chembiol.2004.03.012 15123248
78 Böttcher T Pitscheider M Sieber S A Angew Chem, Int Ed 2010 49 2680 2698 10.1002/anie.200905352
79 Darabedian N Thompson J W Chuh K N Hsieh-Wilson L C Pratt M R Biochemistry 2018 57 5769 5774 10.1021/acs.biochem.8b00648 30169966
80 Weerapana E Speers A E Cravatt B F Nat Protoc 2007 2 1414 1425 10.1038/nprot.2007.194 17545978
81 Makarov D Telek A Becker T von Wrisberg M-K Schneider S Kielkowski P J Mass Spectrom 2022 57 3 e4812 10.1002/jms.4812 35156258
82 Ma T P Izrael-Tomasevic A Mroue R Budayeva H Malhotra S Raisner R Evangelista M Rose C M Kirkpatrick D S Yu K J Proteome Res 2023 22 2218 2231 10.1021/acs.jproteome.2c00703 37285454
83 Li J Van Vranken J G Pontano Vaites L Schweppe D K Huttlin E L Etienne C Nandhikonda P Viner R Robitaille A M Thompson A H Nat Methods 2020 17 4 399 404 10.1038/s41592-020-0781-4 32203386
84 Broncel M Serwa R A Bunney T D Katan M Tate E W Mol Cell Proteomics 2016 15 715 725 10.1074/mcp.o115.054429 26604261
85 Kielkowski P Buchsbaum I Y Kirsch V C Bach N C Drukker M Cappello S Sieber S A Nat Commun 2020 11 517 10.1038/s41467-019-14235-6 31980631
86 Stadlmeier M Runtsch L S Streshnev F Wühr M Carell T ChemBioChem 2020 21 1-2 103 107 10.1002/cbic.201900611 31593346
87 Kao A Chiu C-l Vellucci D Yang Y Patel V R Guan S Randall A Baldi P Rychnovsky S D Huang L Mol Cell Proteomics 2011 10 1 M110.002170 10.1074/mcp.m110.002212
88 Calle B Bineva-Todd G Marchesi A Flynn H Ghirardello M Tastan O Y Roustan C Choi J Galan M C Schumann B J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 2021 32 2366 2375 10.1021/jasms.1c00084 33871988
89 Ismail H M O’Neill P M Hong D W Finn R D Henderson C J Wright A T Cravatt B F Hemingway J Paine M J I Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013 110 19766 19771 10.1073/pnas.1320185110 24248381
90 Zheng B Zhu S Wu X ACS Chem Biol 2015 10 115 121 10.1021/cb500758s 25322207
91 Nishino M Choy J W Gushwa N N Oses-Prieto J A Koupparis K Burlingame A L Renslo A R McKerrow J H Taunton J eLife 2013 2 e00712 10.7554/elife.00712 23853713
92 Li J Cisar J S Zhou C-Y Vera B Williams H Rodríguez A D Cravatt B F Romo D Nat Chem 2013 5 510 517 10.1038/nchem.1653 23695633
93 Dundas C M Demonte D Park S Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2013 97 9343 9353 10.1007/s00253-013-5232-z 24057405
94 Becker T Wiest A Telek A Bejko D Hoffmann-Röder A Kielkowski P JACS Au 2022 2 7 1712 1723 10.1021/jacsau.2c00284 35911458
95 Duan X Li Y Rajan N K Routenberg D A Modis Y Reed M A Nat Nanotechnol 2012 7 401 407 10.1038/nnano.2012.82 22635097
96 Piran U Riordan W J J Immunol Methods 1990 133 141 143 10.1016/0022-1759(90)90328-s 2212686
97 GREEN N Biochem J 1963 89 585 591 10.1042/bj0890585 14101979
98 Wang J Tan X F Nguyen V S Yang P Zhou J Gao M Li Z Lim T K He Y Ong C S Mol Cell Proteomics 2014 13 876 886 10.1074/mcp.m113.029793 24445406
99 Shibata T Nakashima F Honda K Lu Y-J Kondo T Ushida Y Aizawa K Suganuma H Oe S Tanaka H J Biol Chem 2014 289 32757 32772 10.1074/jbc.m114.585901 25294874
100 Yang P-Y Liu K Ngai M H Lear M J Wenk M R Yao S Q J Am Chem Soc 2010 132 656 666 10.1021/ja907716f 20028024
101 Rybak J-N Scheurer S B Neri D Elia G Proteomics 2004 4 8 2296 2299 10.1002/pmic.200300780 15274123
102 Yan T Palmer A B Geiszler D J Polasky D A Boatner L M Burton N R Armenta E Nesvizhskii A I Backus K M Anal Chem (Washington, DC, U S) 2022 94 3800 3810 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c04402
103 Zanon P R A Lewald L Hacker S M Angew Chem, Int Ed 2020 59 2829 2836 10.1002/anie.201912075
104 Patricelli M P Nomanbhoy T K Wu J Brown H Zhou D Zhang J Jagannathan S Aban A Okerberg E Herring C Chem Biol 2011 18 699 710 10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.04.011 21700206
105 Hirsch J D Eslamizar L Filanoski B J Malekzadeh N Haugland R P Beechem J M Haugland R P Anal Biochem 2002 308 343 357 10.1016/s0003-2697(02)00201-4 12419349
106 Green N M Methods Enzymol 1970 18 418 424 10.1016/0076-6879(71)18342-5
107 Chalkley R J Brinkworth C S Burlingame A L J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 2006 17 1271 1274 10.1016/j.jasms.2006.05.017 16809046
108 Ficarro S B Browne C M Card J D Alexander W M Zhang T Park E McNally R Dhe-Paganon S Seo H-S Lamberto I Anal Chem (Washington, DC, U S) 2016 88 12248 12254 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03394
109 Speers A E Cravatt B F J Am Chem Soc 2005 127 10018 10019 10.1021/ja0532842 16011363
110 Wozniak J M Li W Governa P Chen L-Y Jadhav A Dongre A Forli S Parker C G Nat Chem Biol 2024 20 823 834 10.1038/s41589-023-01514-z 38167919
111 Conway L P Jadhav A M Homan R A Li W Rubiano J S Hawkins R Lawrence R M Parker C G Chem Sci 2021 12 7839 7847 10.1039/d1sc01360b 34168837
112 Szychowski J Mahdavi A Hodas J J L Bagert J D Ngo J T Landgraf P Dieterich D C Schuman E M Tirrell D A J Am Chem Soc 2010 132 18351 18360 10.1021/ja1083909 21141861
113 Woo C M Iavarone A T Spiciarich D R Palaniappan K K Bertozzi C R Nat Methods 2015 12 561 567 10.1038/nmeth.3366 25894945
114 Wang J Zhang C-J Zhang J He Y Lee Y M Chen S Lim T K Ng S Shen H-M Lin Q Sci Rep 2015 5 7896 10.1038/srep07896 25600173
115 Flaxman H A Miyamoto D K Woo C M Curr Protoc Chem Biol 2019 11 e75 10.1002/cpch.75 31763793
116 Broncel M Serwa R A Ciepla P Krause E Dallman M J Magee A I Tate E W Angew Chem, Int Ed 2015 54 5948 5951 10.1002/anie.201500342
117 Wright M H Clough B Rackham M D Rangachari K Brannigan J A Grainger M Moss D K Bottrill A R Heal W P Broncel M Nat Chem 2014 6 112 121 10.1038/nchem.1830 24451586
118 Kallemeijn W W Lanyon-Hogg T Panyain N Goya Grocin A Ciepla P Morales-Sanfrutos J Tate E W Nat Protoc 2021 16 11 5083 5122 10.1038/s41596-021-00601-6 34707257
119 Heal W P Jovanovic B Bessin S Wright M H Magee A I Tate E W Chem Commun 2011 47 4081 4083 10.1039/c0cc04710d
120 Paioti P H S Lounsbury K E Romiti F Formica M Bauer V Zandonella C Hackey M E del Pozo J Hoveyda A H Nat Chem 2024 16 426 436 10.1038/s41557-023-01386-9 38093093
121 Nickel S Serwa R A Kaschani F Ninck S Zweerink S Tate E W Kaiser M Chem – Eur J 2015 21 10721 10728 10.1002/chem.201500934 26079733
122 Kalesh K A Clulow J A Tate E W Chem Commun 2015 51 5497 5500 10.1039/c4cc09527h
123 Desai H S Yan T Yu F Sun A W Villanueva M Nesvizhskii A I Backus K M Mol Cell Proteomics 2022 21 100218 10.1016/j.mcpro.2022.100218 35219905
124 Yang K Whitehouse R L Dawson S L Zhang L Martin J G Johnson D S Paulo J A Gygi S P Yu Q Cell Chem Biol 2024 31 3 565 576.e4 10.1016/j.chembiol.2023.11.015 38118439
125 Müller T Kalxdorf M Longuespée R Kazdal D N Stenzinger A Krijgsveld J Mol Syst Biol 2020 16 e9111 10.15252/msb.20199111 32129943
126 Hughes C S Moggridge S Müller T Sorensen P H Morin G B Krijgsveld J Nat Protoc 2019 14 68 85 10.1038/s41596-018-0082-x 30464214
