ArticleProteomics. Clinical applications2010
C-peptide microheterogeneity in type 2 diabetes populations.
Article in Proteomics. Clinical applications, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mass Spectrometric Immunoassays in Characterization of Clinically Significant Proteoforms.Proteomes · 2016Review
- Isotope dilution assay in peptide quantification: the challenge of microheterogeneity of internal standard.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 2013Article
- Mass spectrometric immunoassay and MRM as targeted MS-based quantitative approaches in biomarker development: potential applications to cardiovascular disease and diabetes.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 2013Review
- Rapid development of sensitive, high-throughput, quantitative and highly selective mass spectrometric targeted immunoassays for clinically important proteins in human plasma and serum.Clinical biochemistry · 2013Article
- Human C-peptide Quantitation by LC-MS Isotope-Dilution Assay in Serum or Urine Samples.Journal of chromatography & separation techniques · 2013Article
- Peptide immunoaffinity enrichment coupled with mass spectrometry for peptide and protein quantification.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2011Review
- Mass spectrometric immunoassay of intact insulin and related variants for population proteomics studies.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 2011Article
- Mass spectrometric immunoassay revisited.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2011Review
- Building multidimensional biomarker views of type 2 diabetes on the basis of protein microheterogeneity.Clinical chemistry · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate naturally occurring C-peptide microheterogeneity in healthy and type 2 diabetes (T2D) populations. EXPERIMENTAL
designMS immunoassays capable of simultaneously detecting intact C-peptide and variant forms were applied to plasma samples from 48 healthy individuals and 48 individuals diagnosed with T2D.
resultsCommon throughout the entire sample set were three previously unreported variations of C-peptide. The relative contribution of one variant, subsequently identified as C-peptide (3-31), was found to be more abundant in the T2D population as compared to the healthy population. Dipeptidyl peptidase IV is suspected to be responsible for this particular cleavage product, which is consistent with the pathophysiology of T2D. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: C-peptide does not exist in the human body as a single molecular species. It is qualitatively more heterogeneous than previously thought. These results lay a foundation for future studies devoted to a comprehensive understanding of C-peptide and its variants in healthy and diabetic populations.
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.