Comment on "evidence that the properdp method is inadequate for protein persulfidation detection due to lack of specificity"

Éva Dóka, Elias S.J. Arnér, Edward E. Schmidt, Tobias P. Dick, Albert Van Der Vliet, Jing Yang, Réka Szatmári, Tamás Ditrói, John L. Wallace, Giuseppe Cirino, Kenneth Olson, Hozumi Motohashi, Jon M. Fukuto, Michael D. Pluth, Martin Feelisch, Takaaki Akaike, David A. Wink, Louis J. Ignarro, Péter Nagy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The recent report by Fan et al. alleged that the ProPerDP method is inadequate for the detection of protein per sulfidation. Upon careful evaluation of their work, we conclude that the claim made by Fan et al. is not supported by their data, rather founded in methodological shortcomings. It is understood that the ProPerDP method generates a mixture of cysteine-containing and non cysteine-containing peptides. Instead, Fan et al. suggested that the detection of non cysteine-containing peptides indicates nonspecific alkylation at noncysteine residues. However, if true, then such peptides would not be released by reduction and therefore not appear as products in the reported workflow. Moreover, the authors biological assessment of ProPerDP using Escherichia coli mutants was based on assumptions that have not been confirmed by other methods. We conclude that Fan et al. did not rigorously assess the method and that ProPerDP remains a reliable approach for analyses of protein per/polysulfidation.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbereabe7006
JournalScience Advances
Volume7
Issue number17
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021 Apr 21

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comment on "evidence that the properdp method is inadequate for protein persulfidation detection due to lack of specificity"'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this