Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20473349›Full record

ArticleJournal of proteomics & bioinformatics2009

LC-MS Based Detection of Differential Protein Expression.

Leepika Tuli, Habtom W Ressom

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of proteomics & bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leepika TuliGeorgetown University, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA.
Habtom W Ressom
Georgetown University · US

Funding

Peptide Biomarker Discovery by Mass Spectrometry for Early Detection of Liver CanR21CA130837 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI RESSOM, HABTOM W · 2008 to 2009
$380k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA130837
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While several techniques are available in proteomics, LC-MS based analysis of complex protein/peptide mixtures has turned out to be a mainstream analytical technique for quantitative proteomics. Significant technical advances at both sample preparation/separation and mass spectrometry levels have revolutionized comprehensive proteome analysis. Moreover, automation and robotics for sample handling process permit multiple sampling with high throughput.For LC-MS based quantitative proteomics, sample preparation turns out to be critical step, as it can significantly influence sensitivity of downstream analysis. Several sample preparation strategies exist, including depletion of high abundant proteins or enrichment steps that facilitate protein quantification but with a compromise of focusing on a smaller subset of a proteome. While several experimental strategies have emerged, certain limitations such as physiochemical properties of a peptide/protein, protein turnover in a sample, analytical platform used for sample analysis and data processing, still imply challenges to quantitative proteomics. Other aspects that make analysis of a proteome a challenging task include dynamic nature of a proteome, need for efficient and fast analysis of protein due to its constant modifications inside a cell, concentration range of proteins that exceed dynamic range of a single analytical method, and absence of appropriate bioinformatics tools for analysis of large volume and high dimensional data.This paper gives an overview of various LC-MS methods currently used in quantitative proteomics and their potential for detecting differential protein expression. Fundamental steps such as sample preparation, LC separation, mass spectrometry, quantitative assessment and protein identification are discussed.For quantitative assessment of protein expression, both label and label free approaches are evaluated for their set of merits and demerits. While most of these methods edge on providing "relative abundance" information, absolute quantification is achieved with limitation as it caters to fewer proteins. Isotope labeling is extensively used for quantifying differentially expressed proteins, but is severely limited by successful incorporation of its heavy label. Lengthy labeling protocols restrict the number of samples that can be labeled and processed. Alternatively, label free approach appears promising as it can process many samples with any number of comparisons possible but entails reproducible experimental data for its application.

Identifiers

PMID20473349
PMCPMC2867618
OpenAlexW2155819244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.