Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20072854›Full record

ArticleCytotechnology2009

Comparison of five commercial extraction kits for subsequent membrane protein profiling.

Stefanie Bünger, Uwe J Roblick, Jens K Habermann

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cytotechnology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. TLR7 activation in epilepsy of tuberous sclerosis complex.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Stefanie BüngerLaboratory for Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Uwe J Roblick
Jens K Habermann
Karolinska Institutet · SEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Membrane proteins account for 70-80% of all pharmaceutical targets emphasizing their clinical relevance. Identification of new, differentially expressed membrane proteins reflecting distinct disease properties is thus of high importance. Unfortunately, isolation and analysis of membrane-bound proteins is hampered by their relative low abundance in total cell lysates, their frequently large size and their hydrophobic properties. We thus aimed to identify protocols that allow for highly efficient isolation and purification of membrane-bound proteins for subsequent protein profiling. We present a comparative study of different membrane protein extraction methods that vary in total protein yield between 0.02 and 4.8 mg using constant cell pellets of the colorectal carcinoma cell line SW620. We also demonstrate by means of polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and Western blot analysis that the majority of commercial membrane extraction kits harbor a substantial cytosolic contamination of their membranous fraction. Based on purity of membranous fraction, protein yield, time and costs, we show superiority of two commercial extraction kits for downstream proteome analyses of membrane proteins.

Identifiers

PMID20072854
PMCPMC2825301
OpenAlexW2060031859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.