I dislike the name of the instrument being in the title, but otherwise this is amazing. Over 5,000 proteins from one (large) A549 cell? At 50 cells/day? Ain't cheap in $$/cell but 2-fold quan appears detectable in the sub nanogram peptide load range?? proteomicsnews.blogspot.com/2025/01/up-t... - ThreadSky

proteomicsnews.bsky.social • 42 days ago

I dislike the name of the instrument being in the title, but otherwise this is amazing. Over 5,000 proteins from one (large) A549 cell? At 50 cells/day? Ain't cheap in $$/cell but 2-fold quan appears detectable in the sub nanogram peptide load range?? https://proteomicsnews.blogspot.com/2025/01/up-to-5300-proteins-per-actual-single.html

Comments

dwendscheck.bsky.social•40 days ago

Thank you guys for the discussion! When i started reading your comments I was not sure if I like to hear the "Astral=ToF ?" story again. But, especially for the newcomers in the field like me it's important to know that there were different practices with regard to naming in the past☝️

thirdcoastms.bsky.social•41 days ago

If you had to call out the mass analyzer in the title what would you call it? Maybe something like “next gen q-TOF” or “q-OT-TOF”? It’s definitely impressive work though

proteomicsnews.bsky.social•41 days ago

I guess I question whether you have to mention it at all? The cooler part is the depth of A549 cellular heterogeneity at the protein level.

cashwood.proteaglyco.com•41 days ago

I prefer the way that Thermo did it in 2009, e.g “Dual-pressure linear ion trap mass spectrometer improving the analysis of complex protein mixtures”.
It mentions the instrumental advancement without the branding.
With branding, it looks like an advertisement rather than scholarly publication.

popher.bsky.social•41 days ago

Agree

hamishs.bsky.social•41 days ago

The Orbitrap name initially had a lot of similar pushback, but soon became universally accepted.

The Astral name will follow the same path.

cashwood.proteaglyco.com•41 days ago

What’s being marketed as Astral isn’t a discrete mass analyser like an Orbitrap though.
The C-trap is completely, or largely, ignored in the context of the Orbitrap when it is referred to as a mass analyser.
The mass analyser in an “Astral” is a mrTOF and it should be called that in the title.

cashwood.proteaglyco.com•41 days ago

I feel pedantic about this but I’m curious how the wiser members of ASMS, IMSC, and IUPAC feel about the revision of the mass analyser term to include the ion optics so that it can be given a marketing name.

benneely.com•41 days ago

cashwood.proteaglyco.com•41 days ago

That’s it, I’m making a new “Brawndo” mass analyzer.
It’s what ions crave.

hamishs.bsky.social•41 days ago

I don't think the C-Trap being mentally split off from the Orbitrap has any bearing here.

The Orbitrap (orbital trapping) analyzer had pushback because it was "just" an FT analyzer. It is! but distinctive aspects justify a good name.

No real difference to Astral (ASymmetric TRAck Lossless)

cashwood.proteaglyco.com•41 days ago

I think it does, to demonstrate that the ion processing before mass analysis (ion trap or TOF) is not included in the definition of the mass analyser.
Why was the “Asymmetric Track Lossless” chosen instead of the existing mrTOF name?

hamishs.bsky.social•41 days ago

Because this analyzer is of a unique form (converging "asymmetric" mirrors with supporting trans-axial electrodes) that generates a distinctive ion trajectory (asymmetric track) not common to any extant multi-reflection analyzer.

Lossless comes from the (also distinctive) near 100% transmission.

proteomicsnews.bsky.social•41 days ago

The Orbitrap was fundamentally new. I think the Astral is a really cool TOF and I’m glad it’s out there, but it is more incremental. Time will tell, though! Meanwhile I’m gonna see if DIA is finally big enough for me to convince 3 reviewers I invented DDA. Precursor informed target selection!

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply