Comment on “Evidence that the ProPerDP method is inadequate for protein persulfidation detection due to lack of specificity”

Abstract

The recent report by Fan et al. alleged that the ProPerDP method is inadequate for the detection of protein persulfidation. 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.

Description
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
Dóka É, Arnér ESJ, Schmidt EE, et al. Comment on "Evidence that the ProPerDP method is inadequate for protein persulfidation detection due to lack of specificity". Sci Adv. 2021;7(17):eabe7006. Published 2021 Apr 21. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abe7006
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
Science Advances
Source
PMC
Alternative Title
Type
Article
Number
Volume
Conference Dates
Conference Host
Conference Location
Conference Name
Conference Panel
Conference Secretariat Location
Version
Final published version
Full Text Available at
This item is under embargo {{howLong}}