ArticleBMC ophthalmology2011
Attempting to distinguish between endogenous and contaminating cytokeratins in a corneal proteomic study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proteomic profile of vitreous in patients with tubercular uveitis.Tuberculosis (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2021Article
- A Critical Review of Bottom-Up Proteomics: The Good, the Bad, and the Future of this Field.Proteomes · 2020Review
- Review
- In-depth mass spectrometric mapping of the human vitreous proteome.Proteome science · 2013Article
- Human cornea proteome: identification and quantitation of the proteins of the three main layers including epithelium, stroma, and endothelium.Journal of proteome research · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe observation of cytokeratins (CK's) in mass spectrometry based studies raises the question of whether the identified CK is a true endogenous protein from the sample or simply represents a contaminant. This issue is especially important in proteomic studies of the corneal epithelium where several CK's have previously been reported to mark the stages of differentiation from corneal epithelial stem cell to the differentiated cell.
methodsHere we describe a method to distinguish very likely endogenous from uncertain endogenous CK's in a mass spectrometry based proteomic study. In this study the CK identifications from 102 human corneal samples were compared with the number of human CK identifications found in 102 murine thymic lymphoma samples.
resultsIt was anticipated that the CK's that were identified with a frequency of <5%, i.e. in less than one spot for every 20 spots analysed, are very likely to be endogenous and thereby represent a 'biologically significant' identification. CK's observed with a frequency >5% are uncertain endogenous since they may represent true endogenous CK's but the probability of contamination is high and therefore needs careful consideration. This was confirmed by comparison with a study of mouse samples where all identified human CK's are contaminants.
conclusionsCK's 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 are very likely to be endogenous proteins if identified in a corneal study, whilst CK's 1, 2e, 5, 6A, 9, 10, 14 and 16 may be endogenous although some are likely to be contaminants in a proteomic study. Further immunohistochemical analysis and a search of the current literature largely supported the distinction.
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.