Poly(ethylene oxide) - ACS Publications - American Chemical Society

Subscriber access provided by READING UNIV

Article

Comprehensive Ion Mobility Calibration: Poly(ethylene oxide) Polymer Calibrants and General Strategies Jean R. N. Haler, Christopher Kune, Philippe Massonnet, Clothilde Comby-Zerbino, Jan Jordens, Maarten Honing, Ynze Mengerink, Johann Far, and Edwin De Pauw Anal. Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b02564 • Publication Date (Web): 24 Oct 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on October 30, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Analytical Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Analytical Chemistry

1

Comprehensive Ion Mobility Calibration: Poly(ethylene oxide)

2

Polymer Calibrants and General Strategies

3

Jean R. N. Haler1, Christopher Kune1, Philippe Massonnet1, Clothilde Comby-Zerbino2,

4

Jan Jordens3, Maarten Honing3, Ynze Mengerink3, Johann Far1, Edwin De Pauw1

5

1

Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, University of Liège, Quartier Agora, Allée du Six Aout

6 7

11, B-4000 Liège, Belgium 2

Institut Lumière Matière, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, 69100

8

Villeurbanne, France 3

9

DSM Resolve, Geleen, The Netherlands

10 11

*Corresponding author email address: [email protected]

12 13

Abstract

14

Ion Mobility (IM) is now a well-established and fast analytical technique. The IM

15

hardware is constantly being improved, especially in terms of the resolving power. The

16

Drift Tube (DTIMS), the Traveling Wave (TWIMS), and the Trapped Ion Mobility

17

Spectrometry (TIMS) coupled to mass spectrometry are used to determine the Collision

18

Cross-Sections (CCS) of ions. In analytical chemistry, the CCS is approached as a

19

descriptor for ion identification and it is also used in physical chemistry for 3D structure

20

elucidation with computational chemistry support. The CCS is a physical descriptor

21

extracted from the reduced mobility (K0) measurements obtainable only from the

22

DTIMS. TWIMS and TIMS routinely require a calibration procedure to convert

23

measured physical quantities (drift time for TWIMS and elution voltage for TIMS) into

1 /32

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

24

CCS values. This calibration is a critical step to allow inter-instrument comparisons. The

25

previous calibrating substances lead to large prediction bands and introduced rather large

26

uncertainties during the CCS determination.

27

In this paper, we introduce a new IM calibrant (CCS and K0) using singly charged

28

sodium adducts of poly(ethylene oxide) monomethyl ether (CH3O-PEO-H) for positive

29

ionization in both helium and nitrogen as drift gas. These singly charged calibrating ions

30

make it possible to determine the CCS/K0 of ions having higher charge states. The fitted

31

calibration plots exhibit larger coverage with less data scattering and significantly

32

improved prediction bands and uncertainties. The reasons for the improved CCS/K0

33

accuracy, advantages and limitations of the calibration procedures are also discussed. A

34

generalized IM calibration strategy is suggested.

35 36

Introduction

37

Ion Mobility spectrometry (IM) provides a fast electrophoretic separation of ions in the

38

gas phase. The interest of analytical sciences to couple IM separation, Mass Spectrometry

39

(MS; IM-MS) and conventional separation techniques1 (such as Liquid Chromatography,

40

LC-MS) has peaked during recent years1–11. IM-MS coupling improves the peak

41

capacity12 and raises the confidence level in the identification of compounds and in their

42

structural elucidations.

43

During a low field IM separation, the measurable quantities are either drift times (dt) or

44

elution voltages. They depend on the properties of the ions (charge, mass and shape)13

45

and on the buffer gas (pressure, temperature, nature), but they also strongly depend on the

46

IM setup and the experimental conditions. In order to compare results between different

2 /32


Page 2 of 32

Page 3 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


47

(assumed) low field IM-MS instruments, the raw experimental values have to be

48

converted into physical descriptors of the ions such as the Collision Cross-Section (CCS)

49

which should be independent of the IM hardware and the experimental conditions, as

50

long as the temperature or the drift gas are not changed. In practice, only Drift Tube (DT)

51

IM setups allow to directly extract these shape-related descriptors, meaning the Collision

52

Cross-Section or the reduced mobility (K0) from drift time measurements14. On other IM

53

setups (non-DT setups), a calibration procedure is usually required to convert

54

experimental values into ideally instrument-independent physical quantities of the ions,

55

i.e. CCS or K0 values15,16. Such calibrations then use reference values obtained from DT-

56

based instruments.

57

Different IM-fitted instruments such as the Traveling Wave IM (T-Wave), the DT IM,

58

the Differential IM (DMS) and the Trapped IM (TIMS) setups are commercially

59

available. Their hardware performance boundaries are constantly being pushed further17–

60

25

61

of ion cloud densities and drift voltages on resolving power are as well being optimized

62

in homemade drift tubes26–28. The improvements in resolving power of IM instruments

63

lead to better separations of closely eluted compounds and to smaller drift time

64

dispersions (i.e. a smaller IM peak width) with regards to the peak apex. While the IM

65

measured quantities gain in precision and in accuracy, the calibration processes should

66

avoid introducing uncertainties on CCS and K0 values during the calibration procedure.

67

Calibrations thus need to rely on highly reproducible and robust calibrating ions, for

68

which the CCS and K0 values are insensitive to reasonable changes in experimental

69

conditions.

, especially in terms of resolving power. Fundamental parameters such as the influence

3 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

70

Experimental IM data are related to a three-dimensional shape-dependent property of the

71

ions, reduced to a two-dimensional value. Given that IM measurements convert

72

measurable quantities (drift times, elution voltages) into CCS or K0 values related to the

73

shape of the ions, each calibrating ion needs to have one unique shape which is retained

74

in all IM(-MS) instruments and experimental conditions.

75

Here we suggest synthetic homopolymers, using poly(ethylene oxide) monomethyl ether

76

(CH3O-PEO-H) for proof of concept, as calibrating ions for CCS and K0 measurements in

77

positive ion mode with commercial instruments using N2 as a drift gas. For sake of

78

completeness, the DT-obtained values in He are also provided. The advantages of using

79

synthetic homopolymers are discussed. Their known and constant shapes when

80

increasing the polymer chain length (excluding the zones of structural rearrangements29)

81

stand in contrast to peptide or protein structures which often show multiple

82

conformations upon ion heating30,31. We show that IM calibrations using synthetic

83

homopolymers result in accurate CCS-deduced values for each benchmarked instrument

84

and decreased errors (uncertainties) on the calibrated measurements. The calibration is

85

applied to CCS and K0 measurements on the widely used Synapt G2 HDMS T-Wave

86

(Waters, UK) and the recently developed high-resolution TIMS (Bruker Daltonics, USA)

87

instruments.

88

Experimental

89

All presented data and plots compare measurements taken at room temperature in N2 as

90

drift gas. Drift Tube-obtained CCS and K0 values in N2 and in He used as drift gases are

91

given in the dedicated table in the Supporting Information (Table SI1).

92

Sample Preparation

4 /32


Page 4 of 32

Page 5 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


93

Poly(ethylene oxide) monomethyl ether (CH3O-PEO-H) 750 g/mol (ref. 202495) and

94

2000 g/mol (ref. 202509) samples were bought from Sigma-Aldrich. The samples were

95

diluted to 5 × 10-6 M in pure methanol (Biosolve) spiked with 10-5 M Na+ cations (NaCl

96

salt prepared in pure methanol) for injection. The calibrating substances used in this study

97

are contained in the 750 g/mol sample.

98

Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry: Drift Tube IM (DT)

99

The samples were infused at a flow rate of 150 µL/h into a homemade Ion Mobility-Mass

100

Spectrometer fitted with an Electrospray Ionization source (ESI). The instrument is a

101

Drift Tube-modified Maxis Impact (Bruker, Germany) Quadrupole Time-of-Flight mass

102

spectrometer (Q-ToF). The setup is described in detail elsewhere14. In brief, it contains

103

two 79 cm-long drift tube separated by a dual-stage ion funnel assembly. Both

104

extremities of both drift tubes are fitted with grids, precisely defining the drift distance.

105

After the IM separation, the ions pass through another dual funnel assembly which is

106

followed by a stacked-ring radio-frequency ion guide before entering the original transfer

107

optics of the Maxis Impact Q-ToF. The drift time measurements leading to the CCS and

108

K0 calculations reported in this article were obtained using the second drift region only.

109

The He and N2 DT reference values provided in Table SI1 were taken as 3 replica

110

measurements on 3 different days by 3 different operators. The first and last

111

measurements were spaced by 10 months. For more details on the experimental

112

parameters and on the CCS and K0 calculations, see the Supporting Information. Data

113

processing was performed using Excel 2011 and IgorPro 6.34A.

114

Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry: Trapped IM (TIMS)

5 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

115

For details on the TIMS-TOF (Bruker Daltonics, USA) parameters, see the Supporting

116

Information. The interpretation of the TIMS data was performed using a beta version of

117

Bruker’s DataAnalysis 5-0 software and the UIMF_Viewer software. Data processing

118

was performed using Excel 2011 and IgorPro 6.34A.

119

Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry: Traveling Wave IM (T-Wave)

120

For details on the T-Wave SYNAPT G2 HDMS (Waters, UK) parameters, see the

121

Supporting Information. The interpretation of the T-Wave data was performed using

122

Waters’ MassLynx 4.1 software. ATD peaks were fitted using PeakFit v.4.11 to

123

determine accurate drift times. Data processing was performed using Excel 2011 and

124

IgorPro 6.34A.

125

Calibration procedure: T-Wave

126

Ruotolo and coworkers described the Collision Cross-Section (CCS) calibration

127

procedure for Traveling-Wave-based instruments (T-Wave)15. The detailed protocol with

128

all necessary equations can be found in the Supporting Information.

129

In short, equation 1 represents the calibration curve fit. The reduced DT-measured CCS

130

values (Ω’; charge and reduced mass correction, see equation SI3) are plotted as a

131

function of the corrected drift times (dt”; see equation SI2), measured on the T-Wave

132

instrument. The two fit parameters a and b depend on the experimental conditions.

133

Ω' = a ⋅ ( dt '')

134

, Ω’ is the DT-obtained reduced CCS (see equation SI3), dt” is the corrected T-Wave-

135

obtained drift time (see equation SI2) and a and b are the fitting parameters of the

136

calibration equation depending on the experimental conditions.

137

Calibration procedure: TIMS

b

(1)

6 /32


Page 6 of 32

Page 7 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


138

The TIMS calibration procedure was detailed by the groups of Fernandez-Lima16 and

139

Park32. The detailed protocol with all necessary equations can be found in the Supporting

140

Information.

141

In short, equation 2 represents the calibration curve fit. The DT-measured reduced

142

mobility K0 values are plotted as a function of the inverse elution voltage (1/Ve; see

143

equation SI5 and equation SI6), obtained from the TIMS measurement. The two fit

144

parameters a and b depend on the experimental conditions (equation 2). Using equation 3

145

(derived from the Mason-Schamp equation13), the CCS values can be recalculated from

146

the K0 values.

147

 1 K0 = a + b ⋅    Ve 

148

, K0 is the reduced mobility, a and b are the fitting parameters of the calibration equation

149

depending on the experimental conditions, Ve is the elution voltage.

Ω = c⋅ 150

z 1 ⋅ µT K 0

(2)

(3)

151

, Ω is the Collision Cross-Section (CCS), c is a constant derived from the Mason-Schamp

152

equation (c = 18500 at 305 K), z is the charge of the ion, µ is the reduced mass of the drift

153

gas and the ion, T is the temperature (assumed to be 305 K) and K0 is the reduced

154

mobility.

155

Results and Discussion

156

The calibration process is meant to convert low field (small E/N) IM setup-dependent

157

measured drift times (or its equivalent) into invariant CCS or K0 values (if not changing

158

the temperature or the drift gas). Once the IM calibration is performed, the plot of the

159

CCS as a function of the mass (or mass-to-charge ratio; m/z) for a series of homologous 7 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

160

molecules should be identical for all IM setups. Such plots constitute the repeatability

161

tests (quality control) of the robustness of the calibration. Discrepancies could be

162

assigned to poor calibration fits originating from a temperature-dependent three-

163

dimensional structure of the calibrating substances, a strongly temperature-dependent

164

interaction between the drift gas and the calibrating substances, from a too small number

165

of calibrating points and/or from intrinsic errors in the calibration procedure due to

166

poorly defined ion trajectories. Before presenting the experimental results, the classical

167

(established) calibrating substances of the two non-DT IM setups used in this paper are

168

presented (T-Wave and TIMS).

169

Classical calibrating substances.

170

Biomolecules. The choice of the calibrating ions was up to now guided by equation 4. If

171

the CCS values of biomolecules are plotted as a function of their mass and fit with a pow

172

parameter of ~0.66, then their shapes were postulated to be globular in the gas phase15.

173

Different charge state ions were thus mixed in the calibration plots. However, when

174

fitting polymer-cation CCS evolutions, pow parameters near 0.66 can be found for non-

175

globular shapes. Figure SI1 illustrates such fits for the [PEO + 1Na+]1+ and the [PEO +

176

3Na+]3+ charge states. The globular shapes of [PEO + 1Na+]1+ (no Coulomb repulsion;

177

‘Fit 1+’ in Figure SI1) correlate with pow=0.61 whereas the elongated shapes33 of [PEO

178

+ 3Na+]3+ fit with pow=0.65 (‘Fit 3+’ in Figure SI1). The 0.66 criterion is thus not

179

sufficient to attribute shapes to ions.

180

Ω = A ⋅ mass pow

181

, Ω is the CCS, A and pow are two fitting parameters and mass represents either the mass

182

of the ion or the Degree of Polymerization (DP) of polymer ions.

(4)

8 /32


Page 8 of 32

Page 9 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


183

Additionally, Waters’ T-Wave and Bruker’s TIMS instruments are mainly operated using

184

N2 as drift gas. In contrast, most of the DT-obtained reference values of calibrating

185

substances are published mainly for He as drift gas. The range of calibrating substances

186

available in N2 is drastically reduced34,35.

187

Moreover, multiple conformation peaks are often observed in the ATD for one given

188

mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of biomolecules36–39. Each of these peaks would have to be

189

annotated in literature (DT reference measurements) in order to be able to correlate the

190

reference peaks to the observed peaks in the IM setup needing calibration. However, such

191

multi-peak annotations are barely the case in literature.

192

Above all, in addition, these multi-peak ATDs obtained from the DT (reference)

193

instruments would have to be reproduced on the other IM-MS setups. Otherwise, the

194

assignment of each drift time peak is almost unachievable with a high level of

195

confidence. Even if performing such drift time assignments, the question of the

196

unambiguously invariant shape attributions to each conformation would nevertheless still

197

be unsolved. Indeed, ion temperature25,40–42 and ion dynamics43 studies showed that ion

198

history (ionization source, ion optics…) in different IM setups can differ from instrument

199

to instrument, making multi-peak ATD reproducibility for biomolecules nearly

200

impossible44.

201

Homopolypeptides such as poly(alanine), poly(glycine)34 and poly(proline)45,46 also

202

suffer from multiple conformations depending on the charge state and ion

203

temperature30,31,47.

9 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

204

All in all, the uncertainty of reproducible and invariant ATDs or CCS values (i.e. shapes)

205

of biomolecule-based calibrating substances or even of homopolypeptides could lead to

206

skewed IM values, misinterpretations and low-quality calibration fits (Figure 1.a.).

207

Figure 1

208

Agilent Tune Mix. On the TIMS instrument, the usual calibrating substances originate

209

from the Agilent Tune Mix48. They act as both a mass and a mobility calibrating

210

substance in one sample injection. Nevertheless, the limited number of the Agilent Tune

211

Mix48 calibrating points provides a non-negligible downside due to the operational mode

212

of the TIMS itself. Even when using long TIMS voltage ramps, only a few calibrating

213

ions elute during a TIMS experiment (Figure 2.a.). However, large TIMS ramps prevent

214

attaining the advertised high resolving power32. In order to improve the resolving power

215

and thus the separation of given ions, different TIMS parameters can be changed and

216

optimized. Rather rarely, the gas pressure in the TIMS cell is adjusted. Regularly, the

217

scan rates of the voltage ramp can be changed, but the TIMS ramp itself can as well be

218

changed, meaning shortened. If the elution voltage window is thus shortened, not enough

219

calibrating points of the Agilent Tune Mix can be extracted from the data. This affects the

220

calibration curve accuracy or may even prevent any calibration fit.

221

Figure 2

222

Proposing new calibrating substances: Synthetic homopolymers.

223

Using synthetic homopolymers as calibrating substances presents several advantages

224

compared to biomolecules and to the Agilent Tune Mix. First, synthetic homopolymers

225

such as PEO (poly(ethylene oxide) monomethyl ether) are low-priced, storable at room

10 /32


Page 10 of 32

Page 11 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


226

temperature, and easy to handle compared to biomolecules. Second, many synthetic

227

polymers such as PEO are not subjected to sample degradation or alteration over time.

228

Also, the large mass dispersities of polymer samples lead to a large mobility dispersity.

229

This results in the large coverage of dt”, Ω’, 1/Ve and K0 in the calibration plots by the

230

homopolymer calibrating substances (equation 1 and equation 2) whatever the chosen

231

instrument settings. Polymer samples will yield one-shot easy-to-handle calibrations (e.g.

232

CH3O-PEO-H 750 g/mol sample). This one-shot calibration then reduces the analysis

233

time for any commercially available ion mobility-mass spectrometer (T-Wave, TIMS…).

234

Finally, as we will discuss now, single-cation adducts such as sodium adducts of PEO

235

have an easily predictable shape (spherical shape) which was additionally established to

236

be temperature independent49,50. Their CCS also monotonically depends on the degree of

237

polymerization. These features enable easier troubleshooting detection and last but not

238

least a straightforward interpolation and extrapolation of the calibration curves.

239

Robustness and reproducibility. PEO does not have strong intramolecular interactions,

240

contrary to structured peptides or DNA. PEO-cation complexes provide single and unique

241

ATD peaks for all considered charge states and polymer chain lengths (see Figure 3.a.),

242

as opposed to other polymer ions being much stronger influenced by Coulomb

243

repsulsions51. Using PEO calibrating ions hence seems robust and reproducible, tackling

244

the issue of multi-peak ATD assignments of many biomolecules or synthetic

245

homopolypeptides.

246

Figure 3

247

Moreover, PEO polymer-cation complexes have robust shapes and do not exhibit any

248

change in conformations or any appearance of new stable shapes upon ion heating49,50.

11 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

249

Conformational changes crossing large energy barriers and trapping ions in new

250

geometries do not occur. The assignments of the PEO IM peaks therefore provide

251

unambiguous CCS or K0 values. Such synthetic homopolymer calibrations should then

252

even be usable throughout a large range of experimental temperatures in new non-DT-

253

based Variable Temperature IM-MS setups25 (VT-IM-MS), limiting the requirement of

254

recalibration of the IM cells for each effective temperature.

255

Calibration plots, improved error bars and accuracy. Table SI1 provides the DT-

256

obtained CCS and K0 values of the [PEO + 1Na+]1+ calibrating substances measured in

257

N2 and He at room temperature. The replica measurements were performed on 3 separate

258

days by 3 different operators. The first and last measurements were spaced in time by 10

259

months. Relative Standard Deviations (RSD), 95% confidence intervals (2SD) and the

260

exact number of replica measurements (n) are provided for each calibrating ion, as well

261

as the theoretical masses of the [PEO + 1Na+]1+ complexes, i.e. the theoretical m/z values.

262

Figure 1.a. and Figure 1.b. represent the CCS calibration curves of a T-Wave instrument

263

(according to equation 1). Figure 1.a. uses the published N2 tryptic digest of BSA

264

values34 whereas Figure 1.b. uses our new DT-obtained [PEO + 1Na+]1+ calibration

265

values. Figure 2.a. and Figure 2.b. represent the K0 calibration curves of a TIMS

266

instrument (according to equation 2). Figure 2.a. uses the published N2 Agilent Tune Mix

267

substance values16 whereas Figure 2.b. uses our new DT-obtained [PEO + 1Na+]1+

268

calibration values. The four plots contain the calibration curve fits described in equation 1

269

and equation 2, the 95% confidence bands and the 95% prediction bands of the fit curve.

270

The comparisons of Figure 1.a. and Figure 1.b. as well as of Figure 2.a. and Figure 2.b.

271

reveal major improvements with respect to the prediction bands, i.e. the greatest

12 /32


Page 12 of 32

Page 13 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


272

estimated interval of uncertainty on a calibrated value (‘worst case’ error), when using

273

PEO as calibrating substance.

274

The PEO calibrants [PEO + 1Na+]1+ also increased the number of calibrating points and

275

extends the ranges of the calibration plot axes, especially compared to the tryptic digest

276

of BSA calibration (T-Wave). Compared to the Agilent Tune Mix calibration (TIMS), the

277

synthetic homopolymer calibration improves the correlation coefficient (R²) especially in

278

cases of narrow TIMS ramp voltage conditions.

279

In order to further illustrate the enhanced quality of the calibration fits, i.e. the

280

improvement in the IM error bars (or interval of uncertainty) yielded only by the

281

calibration process, Figure 1.c. and Figure 2.c. plot the CCS and K0 errors calculated

282

from the 95% prediction bands of both the established calibrations and the new synthetic

283

homopolymer calibration. The evolution of these error bars are illustrated on the drift

284

times (or elution voltages) measured for PEO complexes bearing 1 to 4 sodium cations

285

and covering a mass range from ~0 to 4000 Da.

286

Figure 1.c. and Figure 2.c show that the synthetic homopolymer calibration yields

287

constant errors throughout the whole drift time (or elution voltage) and mass range. In the

288

case of the T-Wave, the tryptic digest of BSA calibration yields errors of up to 55 Å2

289

whereas the PEO calibration only yields errors of up to 15 Å2 (up to 73% decrease in

290

error for e.g. m/z ~3500, z = 4+, CCS ~1200 Å2). Moreover, both calibration errors

291

increase when the charge states of the calibrated analytes increase. For the [PEO +

292

1Na+]1+ calibration, however, this error is still constant within each investigated charge

293

state throughout the whole mass range. In the case of the TIMS, the Agilent Tune Mix

294

almost yields a constant error throughout all the different charge states, reaching error

13 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

295

values up to 0.050 cm2V-1s-1 while the PEO calibration reaches a constant average error

296

value of around 0.008 cm2V-1s-1 (84% decrease in error for e.g. m/z ~1500, z = 1+, K0

297

~0.49 cm2V-1s-1), identical for all investigated charge states.

298

In order to establish the accuracy of the PEO-calibrated values, the resulting CCS (T-

299

Wave and TIMS) or K0 (TIMS) values are compared to the reference DT-obtained values

300

in Figure 4.a. and Figure 5.a., and in the Supporting Information (Figure SI5 and Figure

301

SI6). The TIMS comparisons also include the values obtained through the established

302

calibrating substances (Agilent Tune Mix). In order to better visualize these differences

303

between the DT reference values and the calibrated CCS or K0 values, percentage

304

deviations of the calibrated values are calculated using equation 5. These plots are shown

305

in Figure 4.b. and Figure 5.b.

306

%( CCS or K 0 ) =

DT − Calibrated × 100 DT

(5)

307

, DT is the Drift Tube-obtained CCS or K0 value and Calibrated is the TIMS or T-Wave

308

CCS or K0 value after calibration.

309

Figure 4

310

Figure 5

311

Figure 4.a. exhibits that the TIMS and T-Wave CCS experimental values of the BSA

312

peptides are in better agreement with the DT-obtained reference values when using the

313

PEO calibration. According to Figure 4.b., the PEO-calibrated CCS values for 1+ and 2+

314

peptides are slightly more accurate than the Agilent Tune Mix-calibrated TIMS CCS

315

values. Figure 5.a. exhibits an overall better TIMS K0 accuracy for the different charge

316

states of PEO-sodium complexes using the PEO calibration instead of the Agilent Tune

317

Mix calibration. Figure 5.b. more clearly leads to the same conclusion, especially

14 /32


Page 14 of 32

Page 15 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


318

considering the PEO ions carrying 4 charges, and keeping in mind that the [PEO +

319

1Na+]1+ complexes’ deviation for the PEO calibration should not be taken into account

320

because they constitute the calibrating ions (reference). Figure SI3 and Figure SI4 in the

321

Supporting Information show the same plots for CCS values of PEO complexes and K0

322

values of the tryptic digest of BSA peptides. Figure SI5 and Figure SI6 show the

323

correlations between the CCS or K0 values from a T-Wave or a TIMS after the

324

calibration procedure (i.e. using [PEO + 1Na+]1+, a peptide digest from BSA with

325

trypsin34, or the Agilent Tune Mix16 as calibrating points) and the CCS or K0 values

326

obtained from the drift tube instrument used as reference. The slope of the linear

327

regressions and the statistical evaluators (correlation coefficient (R2), residual sum of

328

squares (RSS), F statistic (F-stat) and p-value) provided in these plots lead to the same

329

conclusions as Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure SI3 and Figure SI4, i.e. an overall improvement

330

of the CCS or K0 value accuracy. An important conclusion of those figures is that the

331

calibrating process based on solely the singly charged PEO complexes [PEO + 1Na+]1+ as

332

calibrants yields more accurate CCS (or K0) values even for the CCS or K0 determination

333

of multiply charged ions (e.g. PEO carrying 2 to 4 sodium cations).

334

All in all, improvements in accuracy and in the interval of uncertainty of the calibrated

335

values are obtained when using the synthetic homopolymer complexes ([PEO + 1Na+]1+)

336

as calibrating substances compared to the established calibrating substances.

337

Discussion on the origins of the improved calibration using synthetic homopolymers.

338

The improved calibration plots can be explained by several different considerations. As

339

already mentioned earlier, there are the robust shapes due to the temperature

340

independence of synthetic homopolymers.

15 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

341

Then, the choice of the singly charged polymer ions bears further significant

342

improvements because all the calibrating points share the same shape. Figure SI7 and

343

Figure SI8 illustrate the reproducibility and insensitivity of the [PEO + 1Na+]1+ calibrants

344

when calibrating in different T-Wave wave parameters. Lastly, the choice itself of

345

synthetic homopolymer ions used as calibrating substances plays an important role in

346

enhancing the calibration plots by mimicking the IM behavior of the ions to be measured.

347

Choosing the singly charged calibrating substances. The choice of using only one given

348

charge state over the whole mass range, namely the 1+ charge state [PEO + 1Na+]1+,

349

prevents any shape bias during the calibration. Indeed, 1+ complexes have intrinsically

350

spherical shapes due to the dominant entropic contribution in the absence of strong

351

intramolecular interactions and of Coulomb repulsion (i.e. maximized charge screening

352

of the cation). This eliminates potential biases caused e.g. by concavities and harmonizes

353

the specific interactions of all the [PEO + 1Na+]1+ calibrants with the drift gas particles as

354

revealed by Siems and coworkers52. Indeed, these authors improved the description of

355

hard sphere interactions for the Mason-Schamp equation and identified increasingly

356

disruptive CCS calibration inaccuracies due to differing interaction potentials with the

357

drift gas.

358

Furthermore, the singly charged homopolymers cover larger ranges of the calibration plot

359

axes. This increased number of calibrating points constitutes a significant advantage for

360

TIMS calibrations. Indeed, the TIMS voltage ramp settings dictate the window of

361

measurable K0 ranges. The numerous available calibrating points from [PEO + 1Na+]1+

362

will allow to perform calibrations whatever the ramp settings.

16 /32


Page 16 of 32

Page 17 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


363

Finally, being able to cover large ranges of the calibration plots by using only the [PEO +

364

1Na+]1+ calibrant ions, avoids the requirement of higher charge state ions to extend the

365

CCS range, which can introduce biases during the calibration (see Table SI2).

366

Identifying uncorrected instrumental biases. Even if calibration procedures should be

367

entirely independent of the instrumental setups (mathematical data transformations),

368

empirical evidence of inaccurate calibrated values depending on the calibrating

369

substances is mounting in literature53,54. Such observations result in the conclusions that

370

analyte-homologous calibrating substances should be used for calibration.

371

Hines and coworkers53 analyzed different calibrating substances for yielding reproducible

372

and accurate calibrated CCS values of phospholipids. They found that only lipid

373

calibrating substances were able to yield satisfying accuracies when CCS determination

374

of lipids was performed. Such issues were also observed when analyzing other

375

biomolecules. Because of their inherent sequence differences, inherent shape differences

376

translate into inherent potential energy surface (CCS) dispersities55. These CCS

377

dispersities are reflected in calibration plot dispersities. Despite the introduction of new

378

calibrating substances, calibrating substances which are too different from the chemical

379

nature of the analytes could yield inaccurate calibrated values (affected trueness). Owing

380

to the identical building blocks of given synthetic homopolymers, no CCS dispersities are

381

observed for synthetic homopolymer complexes in restrained mass ranges (see Figure

382

5.a. 2+ ions: DP 13-30, 31-42, 43-49). This results in greatly decreased dispersities on the

383

calibration plots, yielding greatly decreased error bands. The 95% prediction band fits

384

yielded by the PEO calibration are indeed well below (almost up to one order of

17 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

385

magnitude) the ones obtained for the established calibrating substances (Figure 1.c. and

386

Figure 2.c.).

387

This issue of CCS dispersities being reflected in the calibration plots has its origins in

388

flawed drift time (or equivalent) corrections during the calibration process (equation SI2

389

and equation SI6). If the drift time measurements were performed exactly between the

390

beginning and the end of the ion mobility cells and if the ions did not pass through any

391

different pressure/vacuum interfaces or ion optics devices, then one set of calibrating ions

392

would yield satisfying accurate results for all analytes (peptides, lipids, carbohydrates…)

393

as soon as the calibrating ion shapes are not affected by e.g. heating effects. Nevertheless,

394

the drift time measurements are only stopped later in the instruments. The ions have

395

undergone several ion optics and pressure changes. These stages in the IM-MS setups

396

induce in fact additional, presumably non-constant, and uncontrolled IM separations due

397

to variable drag forces. These variable drag forces depend on the different CCS values of

398

the ions at given kinetic energies. The kinetic energies are provided by the acceleration

399

voltages of ion optics, directly related to the mass of the ions. These additional,

400

interfering IM separations are not taken into account when correcting the drift times or

401

elution voltages for calibration (see equation SI2 and equation SI6). These performed

402

drift time (or equivalent) corrections are indeed purely mathematical (equation SI2) or

403

constant (equation SI6), meaning that they do not consider the interfering drifts according

404

to the CCS/mass ratio which occur in the ion optics after the IM cells. The interfering

405

CCS/mass ratio reflects a density parameter of the ions.

406

The corrections (t0) to the drift times of a DT setup are extracted experimentally when

407

performing the linear regressions for CCS determinations. The plots of the drift time

18 /32


Page 18 of 32

Page 19 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


408

evolutions of PEO, as well as the experimental DT corrections (t0) and the

409

mathematically calculated T-Wave drift time corrections (t0; equation SI2) are

410

represented in Figure 3. The difference between the DT and T-Wave t0 evolutions

411

represented in Figure 3.b. highlights the interfering and uncontrolled IM separations

412

occurring within the IM-MS instruments. As it is clearly observed for the [PEO + 2Na+]2+

413

complexes, the drift time evolution (Figure 3.a.) is very similar to their DT t0 evolution

414

(Figure 3.b.). However, the T-Wave t0 evolution (Figure 3.b.) of [PEO + 2Na+]2+ does

415

not reflect its drift time evolution. The interfering drifts according to the CCS/mass ratios

416

are hence not taken into account by the mathematical corrections (t0) in the T-Wave

417

calibration procedure.

418

The magnitude of the interfering drifts can nevertheless be estimated through the quality

419

control plot of a CCS calibration, namely the CCS versus mass plots. Indeed May and

420

coworkers9 established categorizations of CCS spaces as a function of the mass for

421

different analyte families such as lipids, peptides and carbohydrates. These uncontrolled

422

interfering IM separations will increasingly differ for analytes and calibrating substances

423

in increasingly differing CCS spaces. Indeed, isobaric ions can have different volumes,

424

resulting in different CCS/mass ratios, i.e. different density parameters of the ions.

425

Detailed discussions on the effect of the ion density parameter during ion mobility

426

experiments will be the focus of a future paper. Regarding the calibration process, it

427

affects the trueness of the drift times (or elution voltages).

428

Regrouping different biomolecules (enzymatic digests of proteins, proteins or other

429

biomolecules) in the same calibration plots (see Figure 1.a.) therefore prevents producing

430

high quality calibration plots, especially when using even several charge states of

19 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

431

biomolecules or polymers because it further increases the inevitable shape differences

432

incorporated in the IM calibration process54.

433

Remedying uncorrected instrumental biases: General concept of IM calibrations and

434

prospects. In general, singly charged synthetic homopolymer complexes constitute a

435

known, external and independent reference of known spherical shapes. All synthetic

436

homopolymers which do not exhibit multiple conformations or conformational changes

437

dependent on the experimental conditions, will lead to robust and reproducible calibrating

438

substances with high quality calibration fits.

439

Figure SI9 illustrates the close correlation of the CCS spaces (i.e. comparable density

440

parameters) of peptides and of PEO-sodium complexes. The PEO calibrating ions appear

441

to fulfill the calibration requirements for accurate peptide CCS determinations9,56. The

442

correlation of their CCS evolutions as a function of the mass can be described by their fit

443

parameters A from equation 4. The choice of the appropriate calibrating substance for

444

different analytes should thus be based on similar fit parameter A values between the

445

calibrants and the ions of interest.

446

As a general concept, the analyte CCS value has to be probed by an iterative calibration

447

procedure or by selecting tabulated ‘parameter A’ values of calibrants (see equation 4).

448

Indeed, after initial calibration, the CCS or K0 values can to be reevaluated using the

449

appropriate calibrants having the parameter A that matches the parameter A of the ions

450

being measured. This should thus improve the accuracy and the trueness of the measured

451

CCSs. Future efforts in IM calibrations should also go into instrumental developments

452

where the drift time measurements will have to be restricted to solely the IM cells,

453

eliminating the interfering drifts in ion optics, or to calibration databases of singly

20 /32


Page 20 of 32

Page 21 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


454

charged synthetic homopolymers sampling the different parameter A values (CCS

455

spaces), allowing an (automated) iterative calibration procedure.

456 457

Conclusions

458

We proposed a new calibrating substance for Ion Mobility calibrations based on synthetic

459

homopolymers, namely poly(ethylene oxide) monomethyl ether (CH3O-PEO-H). We

460

provided DT-obtained CCS and K0 calibrating points ([PEO + 1Na+]1+) in N2 and He

461

obtained from an electrospray ionization source operated in positive ion mode. The

462

provided values are average values of 3 replica measurements taken on 3 different days

463

by 3 different operators, with 10 months between first and last measurements. We tested

464

the IM calibrations on a T-Wave and a TIMS instruments.

465

The presented IM calibration strategy was based on singly charged synthetic

466

homopolymer [PEO + 1Na+]1+ complexes leading to unambiguously known, spherically

467

shaped calibrating substances. These singly charged calibrating ions are able to provided

468

improvements on prediction bands and uncertainties during the CCS determination of

469

singly charged and multiply charged ions. [PEO + 1Na+]1+ calibrating ions allowed a

470

controlled calibration procedure of the measured values into CCS or K0 values, that

471

ideally should be independent of the density parameter of the calibrating ions.

472

The increased number of calibrating substances is spread over a large range of the

473

calibration plot axes. This avoids the requirement of higher charged species as calibrating

474

substances which increase the error bars on the calibrated values. Additionally, in the

475

case of the TIMS setup, the calibration procedure can now be performed regardless of the

476

TIMS voltage ramps to improve the instrumental resolving power.

21 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

477

Given the little CCS or K0 value dispersity of synthetic homopolymers, the calibration fit

478

quality improved when using synthetic homopolymer calibrants and yields largely

479

decreased 95% prediction bands. This translates into diminished CCS or K0 errors due to

480

the calibration process, i.e. the interval of uncertainty on the calibrated values. This

481

allows for the first time to confidently extract CCS values extrapolated beyond the

482

calibration fit range.

483

Consequently, the focus of IM analyses on improved higher resolution commercial

484

instruments can now shift towards measuring the actual CCS or K0 errors, meaning the

485

peak width of an IM measurement57.

486

The more general concept of calibrating substance choices in real-world context was

487

discussed as well. In reality, the calibration plots are not fully independent of the nature

488

of the calibrating substances. Singly charged PEO homopolymers constitute appropriate

489

calibrating substances for peptide analyses, providing improved accuracy and trueness of

490

the measured CCS values because their density parameters (CCS/mass ratios) matched

491

very well. The choice of the appropriate singly charged synthetic homopolymer to be

492

used as calibrating substance should in fact be based on the density parameter which can

493

be extracted by fitting CCS versus mass plots and will be the subject of a future paper.

494

The general concept of an iterative calibration procedure based on singly charged

495

homopolymer calibrating substances, sampling the density parameters with e.g. pre-

496

established tabulated density values, was suggested.

497 498

Acknowledgments

22 /32


Page 22 of 32

Page 23 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


499

The authors thank the F.R.S.-FNRS for the financial support (Jean R. N. Haler and

500

Philippe Massonnet are F.R.I.A. doctorate fellows). Prof. Philippe Dugourd, Dr. Fabien

501

Chirot and Dr. Luke MacAleese (Université de Lyon) are thanked for the access to the

502

drift tube instrument and for the helpful discussions on this paper. Bruker is

503

acknowledged for their TIMS instrument and software support.

504 a.

b.

c.

505 506

Figure 1: 1.a. and 1.b. represent the Collision Cross-Section (CCS) calibration curves

507

generated for a T-Wave IM setup (equation 1). The reduced N2 CCS (Ω’) values are

508

plotted as a function of the corrected drift time (dt”) values measured in N2 on the T-

509

Wave instrument. Figure 1.a. uses the tryptic digest values of BSA described in

510

literature34 to calculate Ω’ values. Figure 1.b. uses DT-measured values of [PEO +

23 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

511

1Na+]1+ as Ω’ reference values. In both plots, the calibration fits are represented in black,

512

the 95% confidence bands are shown in blue and the 95% prediction bands are

513

represented in red. The calibration equations with their respective fit parameters and their

514

95% prediction band-deduced errors on the coefficients are depicted in each figure.

515

Figure 1.c. plots the largest expected CCS errors as a function of the Degree of

516

Polymerization (DP, number of polymerized monomer units in the polymer chain) of

517

PEO complexes (1 to 4 sodium cations). The largest expected errors are calculated from

518

the 95% prediction bands yielded from the tryptic digest of BSA calibration (in red) and

519

the [PEO + 1Na+]1+ calibration (in red).

520 a.

b.

c.

521

24 /32


Page 24 of 32

Page 25 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


522

Figure 2: 2.a. and 2.b. represent the reduced mobility (K0) calibration curves generated

523

for a TIMS setup (equation 2). The N2 reduced mobility (K0) values are plotted as a

524

function of the inverse of the elution voltage (1/Ve) values measured in N2 on the TIMS

525

instrument. Figure 2.a. uses the Agilent Tune Mix substances16 to calculate K0 values.

526

Figure 2.b. uses DT-measured values of [PEO + 1Na+]1+ as K0 reference values. In both

527

plots, the calibration fits are represented in black, the 95% confidence bands are shown in

528

blue and the 95% prediction bands are represented in red. The calibration equations with

529

their respective fit parameters and their 95% prediction band-deduced errors on the

530

coefficients are depicted in each figure. Figure 2.c. plots the largest expected K0 errors as

531

a function of the Degree of Polymerization (DP, number of polymerized monomer units

532

in the polymer chain) of PEO complexes (1 to 4 sodium cations). The largest expected

533

errors are calculated from the 95% prediction bands yielded from the Agilent Tune Mix

534

calibration (in red) and the [PEO + 1Na+]1+ calibration (in red).

535 a.

b.

536 537

Figure 3: 3.a. represents the DT N2 drift time evolutions of PEO-sodium complexes

538

bearing 1 to 4 cations for several polymer chain lengths (~DP 8 to 70). Figure 3.b.

25 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

539

represents the comparison of the drift time corrections (t0) of a DT (black markers) and a

540

T-Wave (red markers) IM setup. The DT t0 values are obtained experimentally whereas

541

the T-Wave t0 values are obtained mathematically (see equation SI2).

542 a.

b.

543 544

Figure 4: 4.a. represents N2 Collision Cross-Sections (CCS) of peptides provided by a

545

tryptic digest of BSA plotted as a function of the mass. The DT-obtained reference values

546

are represented in gray, the TIMS PEO-calibrated values in red and the Agilent Tune

547

Mix-calibrated16 values in blue. The T-Wave values calibrated by the PEO complexes are

548

represented in green. Figure 4.b. plots the relative percentage of the difference between

549

the DT CCS reference values and the TIMS calibrated CCS values (equation 5; PEO

550

calibration in red and Agilent Tune Mix calibration16 in blue). The dotted lines represent

551

the average percentages for the different charge states for each of the calibrations (color-

552

coded).

553

26 /32


Page 26 of 32

Page 27 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


a.

b.

554 555

Figure 5: 5.a. represents N2 reduced mobilities (K0) of PEO-sodium complexes bearing 1

556

to 4 cations plotted as a function of the Degree of Polymerization (DP, number of

557

polymerized monomer units in the polymer chain). The DT-obtained reference values are

558

represented in gray, the TIMS PEO-calibrated values in red and the Agilent Tune Mix-

559

calibrated16 values in blue. Figure 5.b. plots the relative percentage of the difference

560

between the DT K0 reference values and the TIMS calibrated K0 values (equation 5; PEO

561

calibration in red and Agilent Tune Mix calibration16 in blue). The dotted lines represent

562

the average percentages for the different charge states for each of the calibrations (color-

563

coded).

564 565 566

For TOC only CCS error

K0 error

cm2V-1s-1

Å2

Other Calibrations Polymer IM Calibration DP

DP

567 568

27 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

569

References

570

(1)

571 572

11246–11254. (2)

573 574

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

591

May, J. C.; Goodwin, C. R.; McLean, J. A. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2015, 31, 117– 121.

(10)

589 590

Massonnet, P.; Upert, G.; Smargiasso, N.; Gilles, N.; Quinton, L.; De Pauw, E. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 5240–5246.

587 588

Wyttenbach, T.; Pierson, N. A.; Clemmer, D. E.; Bowers, M. T. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2014, 65, 175–196.

585 586

Bleiholder, C.; Dupuis, N. F.; Wyttenbach, T.; Bowers, M. T. Nat. Chem. 2011, 3, 172–177.

583 584

Bush, M. F.; Hall, Z.; Giles, K.; Hoyes, J.; Robinson, C. V.; Ruotolo, B. T. Anal. Chem. 2010, 82, 9557–9565.

581 582

Kurulugama, R. T.; Valentine, S. J.; Sowell, R. A.; Clemmer, D. E. J. Proteomics 2008, 71, 318–331.

579 580

Dwivedi, P.; Bendiak, B.; Clowers, B. H.; Hill, H. H. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2007, 18, 1163–1175.

577 578

Dugourd, P.; Hudgins, R. R.; Clemmer, D. E.; Jarrold, M. F. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 1997, 68, 1122.

575 576

Far, J.; Delvaux, C.; Kune, C.; Eppe, G.; de Pauw, E. Anal. Chem. 2014, 86,

Czerwinska, I.; Far, J.; Kune, C.; Larriba-Andaluz, C.; Delaude, L.; De Pauw, E. Dalt. Trans. 2016, 45, 6361–6370.

(11)

Massonnet, P.; Haler, J. R. N.; Upert, G.; Degueldre, M.; Morsa, D.; Smargiasso, N.; Mourier, G.; Gilles, N.; Quinton, L.; De Pauw, E. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom.

28 /32


Page 28 of 32

Page 29 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


592

2016, 27, 1637–1646.

593

(12)

Lapthorn, C.; Pullen, F.; Chowdhry, B. Z. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2013, 32, 43–71.

594

(13)

Mason, E. A.; McDaniel, E. W. Transport Properties of Ions in Gases; Wiley:

595 596

New York, 1988. (14)

597 598

Dagany, X.; MacAleese, L.; Dugourd, P. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2015, 86, 94101. (15)

599 600

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

Kurulugama, R. T.; Darland, E.; Kuhlmann, F.; Stafford, G.; Fjeldsted, J. Analyst 2015, 140, 6834–6844.

(20)

609 610

Giles, K.; Williams, J. P.; Campuzano, I. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2011, 25, 1559–1566.

607 608

Giles, K.; Pringle, S. D.; Worthington, K. R.; Little, D.; Wildgoose, J. L.; Bateman, R. H. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2004, 18, 2401–2414.

605 606

Hernandez, D. R.; Debord, J. D.; Ridgeway, M. E.; Kaplan, D. a; Park, M. a; Fernandez-Lima, F. Analyst 2014, 139, 1913–1921.

603 604

Ruotolo, B. T.; Benesch, J. L. P.; Sandercock, A. M.; Hyung, S.-J.; Robinson, C. V. Nat. Protoc. 2008, 3, 1139–1152.

601 602

Simon, A.-L.; Chirot, F.; Min Choi, C.; Clavier, C.; Barbaire, M.; Maurelli, J.;

Cumeras, R.; Figueras, E.; Davis, C. E.; Baumbach, J. I.; Gràcia, I. Analyst 2015, 140, 1376–1390.

(21)

611

Michelmann, K.; Silveira, J. A.; Ridgeway, M. E.; Park, M. A. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2015, 26, 14–24.

612

(22)

Borsdorf, H.; Eiceman, G. A. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 2006, 41.

613

(23)

Ridgeway, M. E.; Wolff, J. J.; Silveira, J. A.; Lin, C.; Costello, C. E.; Park, M. A.

614

Int. J. Ion Mobil. Spectrom. 2016, 1–9.

29 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

615

(24)

616

Silveira, J. A.; Danielson, W.; Ridgeway, M. E.; Park, M. A. Int. J. Ion Mobil. Spectrom. 2016, 1–8.

617

(25)

Ujma, J.; Giles, K.; Morris, M.; Barran, P. E. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 9469–9478.

618

(26)

Kanu, A. B.; Gribb, M. M.; Hill, H. H. Anal. Chem. 2008, 80, 6610–6619.

619

(27)

Levin, M.; Krisilov, A.; Zon, B.; Eiceman, G. Int. J. Ion Mobil. Spectrom. 2014,

620

17, 73–77.

621

(28)

Kirk, A. T.; Zimmermann, S. Int. J. Ion Mobil. Spectrom. 2015, 18, 129–135.

622

(29)

Larriba, C.; Fernandez de la Mora, J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116, 593–598.

623

(30)

Hudgins, R. R.; Mao, Y.; Ratner, M. a; Jarrold, M. F. Biophys. J. 1999, 76, 1591–

624

1597.

625

(31)

Counterman, A. E.; Clemmer, D. E. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 2111–2117.

626

(32)

Silveira, J. A.; Ridgeway, M. E.; Park, M. A. Anal. Chem. 2014, 86, 5624–5627.

627

(33)

Trimpin, S.; Plasencia, M.; Isailovic, D.; Clemmer, D. E. Anal. Chem. 2007, 79,

628 629

7965–7974. (34)

630 631

Bush, M. F.; Campuzano, I. D. G.; Robinson, C. V. Anal. Chem. 2012, 84, 7124– 7130.

(35)

632

Forsythe, J. G.; Petrov, A. S.; Walker, C. A.; Allen, S. J.; Pellissier, J. S.; Bush, M. F.; Hud, N. V; Fernández, F. M. Analyst 2015, 140, 6853–6861.

633

(36)

Liu, F. C.; Kirk, S. R.; Bleiholder, C. Analyst 2016, 141, 3722–3730.

634

(37)

Valentine, S. J.; Counterman, A. E.; Clemmer, D. E. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom.

635 636 637

1997, 8, 954–961. (38)

Valentine, S. J.; Anderson, J. G.; Ellington, A. D.; Clemmer, D. E. J. Phys. Chem. B 1997, 101, 3891–3900.

30 /32


Page 30 of 32

Page 31 of 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


638

(39)

Shelimov, K. B.; Jarrold, M. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 2987–2994.

639

(40)

Morsa, D.; Gabelica, V.; De Pauw, E. Anal. Chem. 2011, 83, 5775–5782.

640

(41)

Shvartsburg, A. A.; Li, F.; Tang, K.; Smith, R. D. 2007.

641

(42)

Chen, S.-H.; Russell, D. H. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2015, 26, 1433–1443.

642

(43)

Poyer, S.; Comby-Zerbino, C.; Choi, C. M.; MacAleese, L.; Deo, C.; Bogliotti, N.;

643 644

Xie, J.; Salpin, J.-Y.; Dugourd, P.; Chirot, F. Anal. Chem. 2017, 89, 4230–4237. (44)

645

Sun, Y.; Vahidi, S.; Sowole, M. A.; Konermann, L. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2016, 27, 31–40.

646

(45)

Counterman, A.; Clemmer, D. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 4885–4898.

647

(46)

Shi, L.; Holliday, A. E.; Glover, M. S.; Ewing, M. A.; Russell, D. H.; Clemmer, D.

648

E. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2016, 27, 22–30.

649

(47)

Counterman, A. E.; Clemmer, D. E. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 12045–12051.

650

(48)

Flanagan, J. M. Mass spectrometry calibration using homogeneously substituted

651 652

fluorinated triazatriphosphorines. US 5872357 A, 1999. (49)

653 654

Mass Spectrom. 1997, 8, 275–282. (50)

655 656

Wyttenbach, T.; Helden, G.; Batka, J. J.; Carlat, D.; Bowers, M. T. J. Am. Soc.

von Helden, G.; Wyttenbach, T.; Bowers, M. T. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. Ion Process. 1995, 146–147, 349–364.

(51)

657

Haler, J. R. N.; Far, J.; Aqil, A.; Claereboudt, J.; Tomczyk, N.; Giles, K.; Jérôme, C.; De Pauw, E. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2017, 1–8.

658

(52)

Siems, W. F.; Viehland, L. A.; Hill, H. H. Analyst 2016, 141, 6396–6407.

659

(53)

Hines, K. M.; May, J. C.; McLean, J. A.; Xu, L. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 7329–

660

7336.

31 /32



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

661

(54)

662 663

88, 5879–5884. (55)

664 665

Allison, T. M.; Landreh, M.; Benesch, J. L. P.; Robinson, C. V. Anal. Chem. 2016,

Henderson, S. C.; Li, J.; Counterman, A. E.; Clemmer, D. E. J. Phys. Chem. B 1999, 103, 8780–8785.

(56)

May, J. C.; Goodwin, C. R.; Lareau, N. M.; Leaptrot, K. L.; Morris, C. B.;

666

Kurulugama, R. T.; Mordehai, A.; Klein, C.; Barry, W.; Darland, E.; Overney, G.;

667

Imatani, K.; Stafford, G. C.; Fjeldsted, J. C.; McLean, J. A. Anal. Chem. 2014, 86,

668

2117–2116.

669

(57)

Kune, C.; Far, J.; De Pauw, E. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 11639–11646.

670

32 /32


Page 32 of 32

Poly(ethylene oxide) - ACS Publications - American Chemical Society

Recommend Documents