Crosslinking mass spectrometry (XL-MS) goes mainstream

Significance of the Topic

Understanding protein–protein interactions under native or near-native conditions is essential for elucidating biological mechanisms such as signal transduction, enzyme regulation and complex assembly. Crosslinking mass spectrometry (XL-MS) captures spatial constraints within or between proteins by covalent linkage and subsequent MS analysis, overcoming limitations in sample size, purity and dynamics inherent in traditional structural biology methods.

Objectives and Study Overview

This white paper describes how XL-MS has evolved from a specialized research tool into a streamlined, standardized workflow suitable for mainstream proteomics laboratories. It reviews advances in crosslinking reagents, mass spectrometry platforms, fragmentation strategies and dedicated data-analysis software that together address the key challenges of sensitivity, throughput and data interpretation.

Methodology and Instrumentation

The typical XL-MS workflow mirrors bottom-up proteomics with added crosslinking and enrichment steps:

• Crosslinking: Use of bifunctional reagents such as DSSO or DSBU, which react with primary amines and cleave in the gas phase to generate diagnostic fragment ions.
• Digestion and enrichment: Enzymatic proteolysis followed by isolation of crosslinked peptides to reduce complexity.
• LC-MSn acquisition: High-resolution MS2 (CID/HCD) to detect signature ions and targeted MS3 or EThcD for sequencing.
• Data analysis: XlinkX node within Proteome Discoverer identifies and validates crosslinks by leveraging known mass shifts from MS-cleavable tags.

Instrumentation

• Orbitrap Fusion Tribrid mass spectrometer supporting CID, HCD, ETD and EThcD fragmentation and synchronous precursor selection (SPS) for SPS-MS3 quantitation.
• Thermo Scientific Proteome Discoverer software with XlinkX nodes for crosslink identification.
• Tandem Mass Tag (TMT) reagents for multiplexed quantitation in QMIX workflows.

Main Results and Discussion

MS-cleavable crosslinkers generate distinctive fragment ion pairs that simplify database searching and reduce the n² search-space problem. The integration of fragmentation modes (CID, ETD, EThcD) enhances sequence coverage of both crosslinked peptides. SPS-MS3 overcomes ratio distortion in isobaric tagging, enabling accurate quantitation of up to 11 conditions simultaneously. XlinkX within Proteome Discoverer automates identification, validation and visualization of crosslinks, democratizing the workflow for non-specialist labs.

Benefits and Practical Applications

• Low sample requirement (nanogram range) and tolerance for complex mixtures.
• Ability to probe transient and stable interactions under near-physiological conditions.
• Complementarity with cryo-EM, X-ray crystallography, NMR and HDX-MS for multi-scale structural insights.
• Quantitative comparison of interaction dynamics and assembly states across multiple conditions.

Future Trends and Potential Applications

Advances may include broader adoption of multiplexed quantitative XL-MS (QMIX) for systems-level interactome studies, development of novel photo-reactive or cell-permeable crosslinkers, integration with machine-learning-based data analysis and real-time in-cell crosslinking techniques. As software matures, fully automated pipelines will further lower barriers to entry.

Conclusion

Crosslinking mass spectrometry has transitioned into a versatile, accessible approach for detailed mapping of protein architecture and interaction networks. Continued innovation in reagents, instrumentation and informatics will expand its impact across structural biology, drug discovery and systems proteomics.

References

1. Kao A. et al. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2011;10(1):M110.002212.
2. Müller MQ. et al. Anal Chem. 2010;82(16):6958–68.
3. Yu C. et al. Anal Chem. 2014;86(4):2099–106.
4. Yu C. et al. Nat Commun. 2015;6:10053.
5. Boutilier JM. et al. J Chromatogr B. 2012;908:59–66.
6. Liu F. et al. Nat Methods. 2015;12(12):1179–84.
7. Frese CK. et al. Anal Chem. 2012;84(22):9668–73.
8. Frese CK. et al. J Proteome Res. 2013;12(3):1520–5.
9. Bomgarden R. et al. ASMS Poster. 2016.
10. Ting L. et al. Nat Methods. 2011;8(11):937–40.
11. McAlister GC. et al. Anal Chem. 2012;84(17):7469–78.
12. Yu C. et al. Anal Chem. 2016;88(20):10301–8.
13. Liu F. et al. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15473.