Showing papers by "Louis J. Ignarro published in 2021"
Karolinska Institutet1, Montana State University2, German Cancer Research Center3, University of Vermont4, Protein Sciences5, University of Calgary6, University of Naples Federico II7, Indiana University8, Tohoku University9, Sonoma State University10, University of Oregon11, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust12, University of California, Los Angeles13, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna14
TL;DR: In this article, the authors conclude that Fan et al. did not rigorously assess the ProPerDP method and that it remains a reliable approach for analyses of protein per/polysulfidation.
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.
3 citations