IntroductionMass spectrometry-based immunopeptidomics is the only unbiased method to identify naturally presented HLA ligands, which is an indispensable prerequisite for characterizing novel tumor antigens for immunotherapeutic approaches. In recent years, improvements based on devices and methodology have been made to optimize sensitivity and throughput in immunopeptidomics. However, developments in ligand isolation, mass spectrometric analysis, and subsequent data processing can have a marked impact on the quality and quantity of immunopeptidomics data.MethodsIn this work, we compared the immunopeptidome composition in terms of peptide yields, spectra quality, hydrophobicity, retention time, and immunogenicity of two established immunoprecipitation methods (column-based and 96-well-based) using cell lines as well as primary solid and hematological tumor samples.ResultsAlthough, we identified comparable overall peptide yields, large proportions of method-exclusive peptides were detected with significantly higher hydrophobicity for the column-based method with potential implications for the identification of immunogenic tumor antigens. We showed that column preparation does not lose hydrophilic peptides in the hydrophilic washing step. In contrast, an additional 50% acetonitrile elution could partially regain lost hydrophobic peptides during 96-well preparation, suggesting a reduction of the bias towards the column-based method but not completely equalizing it.DiscussionTogether, this work showed how different immunoprecipitation methods and their adaptions can impact the peptide repertoire of immunopeptidomic analysis and therefore the identification of potential tumor-associated antigens.