Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20230925›Full record

ArticleJournal of proteomics2010

A comparison of the accuracy of iTRAQ quantification by nLC-ESI MSMS and nLC-MALDI MSMS methods.

Sally L Shirran, Catherine H Botting

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of proteomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Sally L ShirranCentre for Biomolecular Sciences, Biomolecular Sciences Building, North Haugh, University of St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9ST, United Kingdom.
Catherine H Botting

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accuracy of quantification obtained using the iTRAQ labelling methodology for measuring protein ratios more extreme than 1:1 was investigated. A comparison of nLC-ESI MSMS and nLC-MALDI MSMS analysis routes was performed. A fixed concentration of a standard six protein mix was spiked with two proteins at a range of concentrations. The two data analysis programmes, Mascot and ProteinPilot Paragon, were also compared. Whilst the lower ratios could be measured accurately, greater discrepancies were seen for the higher ratios, particularly by nLC-ESI MSMS. Filtering out the weaker reporter ion signals improved the accuracy of the ratios: this is likely due to several factors which are explored in more detail. Overall, analysis by nLC-MALDI MSMS followed by Mascot interpretation gave the most accurate results.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingPeptide MappingReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySpectrometry, Mass, Electrospray IonizationSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization

Identifiers

PMID20230925
PMCPMC2880794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.