$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Modern computational workflows are often complex, with multiple tools from many different vendors, complex interdependencies, high data volumes, and multifaceted results. Consequently, it is increasingly difficult to accurately document all the steps required to obtain a result, making it difficult to reproduce the given result. Here, we demonstrate a general strategy that combines the automation and ease of an automated workflow that produces a generic report, with the flexibility to customize the report in a reproducible fashion.
Three requirements need to be fulfilled for the protocol to work: First, the proteins selected for analysis need to interact in such a manner that the chemical cross-linking experiment can produce cross-linked species at a sufficiently high concentration to be detected by the mass spectrometer; different mass spectrometers have different levels of detection and are also dependent on the acquisition protocol as well as the choice of cross-linking reagent. The current version of TX-MS protocol only allows for DSS, a lysine-lysine homobifunctional cross-linking reagent. Still, this limitation is primarily due to the possibility that the machine learning step would need to be adjusted for other reagents. This limitation has been improved in the Cheetah-MS web server as two more cross-linking reagents can be considered, but all three are non-cleavable reagents. Second, the two proteins need either to have an experimentally determined structure or be modeled using comparative modeling techniques or de novo techniques. Not all proteins can be modeled, but a combination of improved software and a constant deposition of experimental structures in the PDB expands the number of proteins that can be modeled. Third, the interacting proteins should remain sufficiently similar in their bound and unbound states so that the docking algorithms in use by TX-MS and Cheetah-MS can create quaternary structures of adequate quality to enable scoring. This requirement is relatively vague, as acceptable quality is highly system-dependent, where smaller proteins of known structure are generally easier to compare than larger proteins of unknown structure.
In case of a negative result, first check that TX-MS found intra-links, cross-links between residues that are part of the same polypeptide chain. If none are discovered, the most likely explanation is that something went wrong with the sample preparation or the data acquisition. If multiple distance constraints do not support the models, visually inspect the models to ensure that the conformation is supported by cross-linked residues. There is no obvious way to pivot one of the interactors without disrupting at least one cross-link. If there are cross-links longer than the permitted distance for the given cross-linking reagent, try to improve the modeling of the interactors by incorporating cross-linking data.
It is possible to use alternative software applications to accomplish equivalent results provided that the sensitivity of the chosen software is comparable to the sensitivity of TX-MS. For example, there are online versions of RosettaDock, HADDOCK, and others. It is also possible to analyze chemical cross-linking data through xQuest/xProphet5,6, plink7, and SIM-XL26.
We are continuously applying TX-MS and Cheetah-MS to new projects27,28,29, thereby improving the reports produced by these approaches to allow for a more detailed analysis of results without making the reports larger.