English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The recent report by Fan et al alleged that the ProPerDP method is inadequate for the detection of protein persulfidation. Upon careful evaluation of their work, we conclude that the claim made by Fan et al is not supported by their data, rather founded in methodological shortcomings. It is understood that the ProPerDP method generates a mixture of cysteine-containing and non-cysteine-containing peptides. Instead, Fan et al suggested that the detection of non-cysteine-containing peptides indicates nonspecific alkylation at noncysteine residues. However, if true, then such peptides would not be released by reduction and therefore not appear as products in the reported workflow. Moreover, the authors' biological assessment of ProPerDP using Escherichia coli mutants was based on assumptions that have not been confirmed by other methods. We conclude that Fan et al did not rigorously assess the method and that ProPerDP remains a reliable approach for analyses of protein per/polysulfidation.

Comment on “Evidence that the ProPerDP method is inadequate for protein persulfidation detection due to lack of specificity”