There was the notion a few years/decades ago that nanoflow (200-300nl/min) reverse phase LC-MSMS was most appropriate for MS based proteomics experiments. Recent publications and new instrumentation suggest equally good data can be obtained using microflow (1-50 ul/min). My laboratory is about to add a new LC-MS system for proteomics, and I'm uncertain of what's the best LC approach. I'd like to gauge what the proteomics comunity is currently doing.
So, the question is short and simple, considering pros and cons of Nano vs micro flow LC, what's your ultimate choice?
Nano or micro? Once I've collected the data, I'll plot the results and share it with you!
Thanks
I would like to share two recent papers:
The micro LC is so good that you can run > 10000 samples on the same column within > 6 months. You can run your sample like normal HPLC-MS.
1. Lenco, J. et al. Conventional-flow liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry for exploratory bottom-up proteomic analyses. Anal. Chem. 90, 5381–5389 (2018). Article Conventional-Flow Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry fo...
2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13973-x
"Robust, reproducible and quantitative analysis of thousands of proteomes by micro-flow LC–MS/MS"
You can read this paper
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324051833_Conventional-Flow_Liquid_Chromatography-Mass_Spectrometry_for_Exploratory_Bottom-Up_Proteomic_Analyses
Dear Alejandro Martin Cohen, I think in both cases there are resolution limits, better will be if electrophoresis (and even GPC) is used meanwhile. My Regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Nanotechnology
- Nano