Table I.

Strengths and weaknesses of different AP-MS approaches

Strength/weakness Tagged cDNA Specific antibodiesc QUBIC 
 Single-step purificationa TAP purificationb   
Endogenous gene expression level − − 
Endogenous gene processing − − 
Material required − 
Transient interactors − +/− 
True quantification for background discrimination +/− +/− 
Objective statistical evaluation +/− +/− +/− 
Sensitivity +/− − 
Measurement time +/− − 
Standard protocol for all baits +/− +/− − 
Compatible with imaging methods +/− +/− − 
Strength/weakness Tagged cDNA Specific antibodiesc QUBIC 
 Single-step purificationa TAP purificationb   
Endogenous gene expression level − − 
Endogenous gene processing − − 
Material required − 
Transient interactors − +/− 
True quantification for background discrimination +/− +/− 
Objective statistical evaluation +/− +/− +/− 
Sensitivity +/− − 
Measurement time +/− − 
Standard protocol for all baits +/− +/− − 
Compatible with imaging methods +/− +/− − 

+, fulfilled; +/−, partially fulfilled; −, not fulfilled. Three common AP-MS strategies are summarized and compared with QUBIC. There are different aspects that facilitate reliable and scalable results in MS-based interaction mapping. Before QUBIC, it is possible to meet some but not all of these requirements at the same time.

a

Sowa et al., 2009.

b

Glatter et al., 2009.

c

Trinkle-Mulcahy and Lamond, 2007.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal