Talk:Protein mass spectrometry

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved -- EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see one editor in favor of the move and one opposed, so there is no obvious consensus. I was not sure how to count Kkmurray's observation; he seems to favor a different organization of the material. The argument about WP:COMMONNAME is not persuasive. The suffix 'omics' gets only four search hits in the article text. The answer as to which name is best might become more obvious if the article were expanded to cover its topic more completely. A new move request at that time might be logical. The lack of inline citations until the last paragraph makes it hard to tell what material is coming from sources that think of this topic as 'proteomics' rather than 'protein mass spec'. Editors might also consider expanding the section on mass spectrometry in quantitative proteomics. Since no move was done, I don't have to decide the question of what kind of dash to use. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Protein mass spectrometry → Mass spectrometry–based proteomics — Relisted. Note that another editor attempted to relist this on April 5. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC) This is the WP:COMMONNAME for this field, as used by, for example, this paper cited about 2800 times. It is not overwhelming, but Google Books shows about 2× more hits: new name vs. old name. Additionally, this name also more naturally encompasses such things as phosphoproteomics, whereas "protein mass spectrometry" does not. Also note I am using an en dash to satisfy MOS:ENDASH #5, but if people feel strongly I would be OK with using a hyphen. –CWenger (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (stumbled upon in WP:RM while trying to learn why another RM wasn't being closed, I swear I didn't search in purpose for this discussion) The Nature paper uses a hyphen. In the linked search for the new name, I couldn't find a single dash usage in the first 100 results, I only found many books that used a hyphens and a few that used a space. To remove possible bias, I searched again, removing the books that cited the Nature paper, I had similar results: no dashes, many hyphens, a few spaces. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree an en dash is rarely used. My main intent here is to get the name changed, I am not that concerned about punctuation. I don't want to get into that argument so I will happily go with whatever the majority wants (assuming consensus is to move). However, a quick Google search did turn up this paper that uses an en dash. –CWenger (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to bring up a point of discussion with this proposal and to be clear I have not made up my mind: Not all protein mass spectrometry can really be considered mass spectrometry-based proteomics. With that being said there certainly is a slippery slope that these fields as a whole has progressed down where anything protein is becoming proteomics. Do the majority of people in these fields consider the study of how many protons can charge a single well purified protein standard or perhaps synthetic small protein or studying the ionization of proteins in novel MALDI matrices, or how gas phase protein complexes dissociate via different fragmentation mechanisms to be "mass spectrometry-based proteomics"? Being slightly old school, I tend not to. I consider proteomics to involve somewhere between "large-scale". i.e. cells, organelles, sub cellular fractions etc. and "focused proteomics", a highly purified but not to homogeneity fraction, but always focused on measuring the complement of proteins in a biological organism. By comparison, the biophysics of a synthetic DNA molecule passing through a synthetic porous material is hardly genomics. Clearly protein mass spectrometry and mass spectrometry-based proteomics both exist and are interrelated, but are they the same? --Nick Y. (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good point that I hadn't considered. I have two responses: (1) This article seems to be more about proteomics than single protein work. Just looking at the sections we have "Protein and peptide fractionation coupled with mass spectrometry" (which could be either), "Protein identification" (which shouldn't be necessary for small-scale studies), and "Protein quantitation" (which could be either but here discusses large-scale methods). "Protein structure" is indeed for single proteins, however, it is a pretty short section. (2) As I said above, things like phosphoproteomics do not fit very well into an article called "protein mass spectrometry". It is more natural in an article called "mass spectrometry–based proteomics". This is hypothetical for now since that content is not in the current article, but it is something to consider as a counterpoint to having content about single protein work in an article with the proposed name. –CWenger (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also there is already a Proteomics article which of course is substantially about mass spectrometry-based proteomics. I would tend to think that this space should be reserved for the capacity to do mass spectrometry on proteins in general and the proteomics article could use a "mass spectrometry-based proteomics" section detailing how mass spec is used in proteomics and linking to this article about the more general capacity. Just an idea. In any case we probably don't need three articles, yet we should cover all these subjects. Again I think shorter summary section on proteomics here, more details within Proteomics as the major subsection.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Much of mass spectrometry-based proteomics does not involve mass spectrometry of proteins but rather mass spectrometry of peptides. For example, any bottom-up proteomics method does not involve protein mass spectrometry. I think that this article should focus on intact protein mass spectrometry such as top-down proteomics, hydrogen-deuterium exchange and MALDI and plasma-desorption mass spectrometry applications. I agree that mass spectrometry-based proteomics should be in the proteomics article. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be much left in this article if all the peptide-related content was removed... –CWenger (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Peer review
Overall, this article is well written and a comprehensive overview of protein MS. Here are some suggestions to help increase the class rating of the article. Cellison27 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The software section needs to be expanded, integrated into another section, or removed. I think it’s too brief to stand as a section itself.
 * You could add more subsections to the “Practical Applications” section.
 * A history section would be a useful addition in which you discuss scientists who have moved the field forward, how protein MS was first used, and how it progressed into what it is today.
 * There are some missing citations throughout the article. These should be provided.

Comments
Added references to article/reworded and added information about 2D-PAGESjack52 (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Article needs rewriting/rerranging
I will shortly start rearranging and rewriting some parts of the article. The lead should be an introduction with summary of the content per WP:LEAD, part of the lead will therefore be moved and summary added. Hzh (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a process of separating protein in m/z ratio Stark Arijit (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Mass spectometry
It is a process of separating protein in m/z (m=Mass,z=atomic charge)ratio by ionization of vaporized protein obtained from MALDI. Stark Arijit (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)