ArticleJournal of chromatography. A2010
Fast proteomic protocol for biomarker fingerprinting in cancerous cells.
Article in Journal of chromatography. A, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cell Cycle Model System for Advancing Cancer Biomarker Research.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Fast Enzymatic Processing of Proteins for MS Detection with a Flow-through Microreactor.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2016Article
- Microfluidic LC device with orthogonal sample extraction for on-chip MALDI-MS detection.Lab on a chip · 2013Article
- Quantification of beta-catenin signaling components in colon cancer cell lines, tissue sections, and microdissected tumor cells using reaction monitoring mass spectrometry.Journal of proteome research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The advance of novel technologies that will enable the detection of large sets of biomarker proteins, to greatly improve the sensitivity and specificity of an assay, represents a major objective in biomedical research. To demonstrate the power of mass spectrometry (MS) detection for large-scale biomarker screening in cancer research, a simple, one-step approach for fast biomarker fingerprinting in complex cellular extracts is described. MCF-7 breast cancer cells were used as a model system. Fast proteomic profiling of whole cellular extracts was achieved on a linear trap quadrupole (LTQ) mass spectrometer by one of the following techniques: (a) data-dependent liquid chromatography (LC)-MS/MS of un-labeled cell extracts, (b) data-dependent LC-MS/MS with pulsed Q dissociation (PQD) detection of iTRAQ labeled samples, and (c) multiple reaction monitoring (MRM)-MS of low abundant proteins that could not be detected with data-dependent MS/MS. The data-dependent LC-MS/MS analysis of MCF-7 cells enabled the identification of 796 proteins (p<0.001) and the simultaneous detection of 156 previously reported putative cancer biomarkers. PQD detection of iTRAQ labeled cells resulted in the detection of 389 proteins and 64 putative biomarkers. MRM-MS analysis enabled the successful monitoring of a panel of low-abundance proteins in one single experiment, highlighting the utility of this technique for targeted analysis in cancer investigations. These results demonstrate that MS-based technologies relying on a one-step separation protocol have the potential to revolutionize biomarker research and screening applications by enabling fast, sensitive and reliable detection of large panels of putative biomarkers. To further stimulate the exploration of proteins that have been previously reported in the literature to be differentially expressed in a variety of cancers, an extensive list of approximately 1100 candidate biomarkers has been compiled and included in the manuscript.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.