Endogenous Co-IP-MS
Choose this workflow when You have a usable IP antibody and need to identify or compare proteins associated with an endogenous bait under native-context conditions.
Click to preview →
Endogenous Interaction Proteomics
Endogenous Protein Interaction Analysis Service
LC-MS/MS-based endogenous protein interaction analysis for discovering candidate interactors, comparing condition-related interaction changes, and assessing complex composition in cells, tissues, or other near-native sample contexts.
Use this service when a standard overexpression model may not reflect the target's native abundance, localization, or complex state. It is suitable for reviewing candidate interactors, condition-related changes, or low-abundance associations in a more relevant sample context.
- Evaluate candidate interactors in endogenous or near-endogenous contexts.
- Compare interaction or complex changes across conditions or groups.
- Support follow-up validation of prioritized candidates.
Endogenous ContextCandidate InteractorsCondition ComparisonComplex CompositionPilot Available
Research experience
Supporting interaction proteomics projects for academic and industry research groups
Researchers from leading academic and industry organizations have worked with MtoZ Biolabs on protein interaction and crosslinking mass spectrometry projects. Project scope, workflow, and controls are tailored to each study.
When This Service Is a Good Fit
Designed for endogenous interaction proteomics projects where native expression context, capture feasibility, or condition-related association evidence matters.
Endogenous target evaluation
Evaluate interaction evidence without relying on strong overexpression systems.
Candidate interactor screening
Check whether candidates from Co-IP, pull-down, previous reports, or omics data remain supported.
Condition-related comparison
Compare interaction changes across treatment, stimulation, mutation, time-course, or model groups.
Native complex composition
Assess complex-associated proteins or component shifts beyond a single bait-centered list.
Antibody or tag limitations
Plan around IP background, tag interference, expression level, and localization concerns.
Discovery-to-validation planning
Connect discovery, filtering, prioritization, and follow-up validation in one project route.
Choose the Right Endogenous Interaction Workflow
Select a route based on your target, sample state, capture strategy, and whether the goal is interactor discovery, complex stabilization, native-complex analysis, proximity profiling, or candidate validation.
Not sure which route fits? Choose Not sure : recommend a workflow in the quote form and share your target protein, sample type, available enrichment information, and expected result.
Crosslinking-Assisted IP-MS
Choose this workflow when You expect weak, transient, treatment-dependent, or lysis-sensitive associations that may be lost during conventional extraction and enrichment.
Click to preview →Native Complex Enrichment-MS
Choose this workflow when Your main goal is to characterize native protein-complex composition, candidate subunits, or condition-related changes at the complex level.
Click to preview →Controlled Tagging Workflow
Choose this workflow when Endogenous antibody capture is inadequate, but a carefully controlled tagged model can be established with attention to expression level and localization.
Click to preview →Proximity Labeling
Choose this workflow when You need to profile proteins located near a target or subcellular compartment, including associations that may not remain stable during purification.
Click to preview →Targeted Validation
Choose this workflow when You already have prioritized interaction candidates and need focused, reproducible comparison across samples, conditions, or validation batches.
Click to preview →
Workflow preview
Select a route above
After you select a route, this panel will summarize the recommended next step and carry that choice into the quote form.
Service Workflow
A project path from feasibility review and sample planning to enrichment, LC-MS/MS acquisition, data analysis, and reporting.
Project Review
Confirm target, sample type, controls, and expected output.
Workflow Planning
Select IP, enrichment, tagging, proximity, or validation route.
Sample Preparation
Prepare lysate, enriched material, or labeled samples with controls.
LC-MS/MS
Acquire proteomics data with suitable QC settings.
Data Analysis
Filter background and compare interaction candidates.
Report Delivery
Provide result files, QC summary, and interpretation notes.
A simplified project path from sample review to enrichment, LC-MS/MS acquisition, and interpretation-ready reporting.
What to Send Us by Workflow
Recommended sample formats and typical planning ranges for common endogenous interaction analysis routes.
| Workflow | Sample Type | Sample Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Endogenous Co-IP-MS | Cells, tissue lysate, or IP-ready material with target information and matched controls. | 1-5 × 10⁷ cells ,100-150 µL cell pellet or 1-5 mg total protein per IP condition. |
| Crosslinking-Assisted IP-MS | Cells, tissues, or treatment groups where weak or lysis-sensitive interactions are a concern. | 1-10 × 10⁷ cells ,100-150 µL cell pellet per condition or 50-200 mg tissue. |
| Native Complex Enrichment-MS | Native lysate, fraction, or enriched complex with compatible buffer information. | 0.5-2 mg native lysate, or 1-10 mg for fractionation review. |
| Proximity Labeling / Tagging | Labeled or tagged cells with matched negative controls and labeling conditions. | 1-5 × 10⁷ labeled cells ,100-150 µL cell pellet per condition as a starting reference. |
| Targeted Validation | Candidate list, sample matrix, and comparison groups from prior discovery work. | 3 biological replicates per group (preferred). |
Need a quick sample check?
We can review sample fit, controls, and approximate input before project setup.
Results & Deliverables
Deliverables are organized to highlight candidate interactors, comparison results, quality control, and interpretation outputs.
Candidate interactor list
Protein names, accessions, identification information, and relative quantification results.
Condition comparison results
Interaction changes among different treatment groups, model groups, or time points.
Background-filtering results
Background assessment based on project controls.
QC summary
Sample detection quality, number of protein identifications, reproducibility, and data coverage.
Method and analysis description
Sample processing, enrichment strategy, LC-MS/MS, and data analysis workflow.
Result interpretation report
Key candidate proteins, condition-related changes, and follow-up validation recommendations.
Raw and processed data
Excel/CSV result tables, PDF report, and raw and processed data files; typical timeline 4 weeks after sample acceptance, depending on workflow.
Platform & Capabilities
Integrated project design, LC-MS/MS instrumentation, and QC review for endogenous interaction proteomics.
Project Support
From capture review to validation planning
Each project is reviewed around the target, sample state, enrichment strategy, controls, and expected evidence level.
Capture Review
Assess antibody, tag, enrichment route, sample input, and control design.
Interaction Evidence
Support discovery, complex composition, proximity profiling, or condition comparison.
Filtering and QC
Review background controls, replicate consistency, signal stability, and enrichment specificity.
Follow-Up Direction
Prioritize candidates for targeted validation or orthogonal confirmation.
Platform
LC-MS/MS platform
UltiMate3000 RSLCnano Orbitrap Fusion™ Lumos™ Tribrid™
High-sensitivity LC-MS/MS for in-depth proteomics analysis.
Vanquish Neo Orbitrap Fusion™ Lumos™ Tribrid™
Flexible LC-MS/MS acquisition for complex proteomics workflows.
Vanquish Neo Orbitrap Exploris 480
High-resolution LC-MS/MS with robust quantitative performance.
Vanquish Neo Astral
High-throughput LC-MS/MS with deep proteome coverage.
Control-aware filteringReplicate reviewCoverage assessmentReport-ready tables
Result Considerations
A quick guide to what the results can support, what should be interpreted with caution, and when a pilot review may be useful.
What results can support
Candidate interactor screening, complex-related protein analysis, and comparison of condition-related interaction changes.
What results should not confirm alone
Direct physical binding, broad interaction-network mapping, or functional causality.
Main influencing factors
Target abundance, antibody or tag performance, sample quality, input amount, control design, and MS coverage.
Pilot review may be useful
Low-abundance targets, membrane proteins, unvalidated antibodies, limited sample amounts, weak or transient interactions.
Endogenous vs Overexpression Analysis
A quick guide to choosing endogenous-context analysis versus overexpression-based interaction analysis.
| Scenario | Endogenous Analysis | Overexpression-Based Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Expression context | Closer to native protein levels | Higher signal, more perturbation |
| Candidate confirmation | Checks support under endogenous context | Useful for early discovery or model building |
| Localization / complex state | Better when native localization matters | Tag or high expression may shift localization |
| Capture feasibility | Depends on antibody, abundance, and input | Easier capture when bait is abundant |
| Interpretation risk | Lower expression-related bias | Higher risk of non-physiological associations |
FAQs
Frequently asked questions about Endogenous Protein Interaction Analysis.
Overexpression systems can be useful for model construction and signal amplification. Endogenous interaction analysis is more suitable when lower-perturbation context and native-level support are important.
A feasibility review or small-scale test is usually recommended first. If antibody capture is not practical, controlled tagging, proximity labeling, or another enrichment route may be considered.
Crosslinking-assisted IP-MS, proximity labeling, or optimized enrichment conditions may be considered depending on target localization, sample type, treatment condition, and available controls.
Co-IP-MS usually provides co-enrichment or complex-related evidence. Direct binding should be evaluated with additional validation when that conclusion is required.
Yes, when groups, controls, biological replicates, and background-control strategies are planned in advance.