ArticleAnalytical chemistry2026
Solution Phase Protein Dynamics: Influences of ESI Buffers on Hydration.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Buffers are commonly selected for their compatibility with biochemical measurements or their specific capabilities, yet buffer interactions with proteins and the surrounding water can actively reshape protein activity, structure, and dynamics. Here, we compare the influences of three widely used electrospray ionization (ESI) buffers on the dynamics and stability of wild-type transthyretin (wtTTR) and TTR mutants (V30M, L55P, T119M, V122I) using native mass spectrometry (nMS). Ammonium acetate (AmAc), ethylenediammonium diacetate (EDDA), and triethylammonium acetate (TEAA) are commonly employed in nMS because they stabilize the sample in solution, facilitate gentle ionization, and minimize adduct formation on proteins and protein complexes. In comparison to AmAc, EDDA and TEAA reduce the average charge state (Zavg) of ions, consistent with conformational changes that decrease the solvent-accessible surface area (SASA) of proteins. Intact protein hydrogen-deuterium exchange experiments indicate significantly lower deuterium uptake for all TTR proteoforms in EDDA compared with AmAc or TEAA. Ion mobility MS revealed that each TTR proteoform has a larger average CCS and broader CCS distributions in AmAc, indicating greater conformational heterogeneity and dynamics than in EDDA or TEAA. Measurements of TTR tetramer disassembly and reassembly further demonstrated that the buffer identity strongly influences tetramer stability in solution. The buffer-dependent effects arise from differences in buffer-protein and buffer-solvent interactions that alter the hydration of the protein. These results highlight that buffer composition can significantly influence experimentally observed protein dynamics and stability, with important implications for interpreting measurements across biochemical and biophysical techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.