Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22899259›Full record

ArticleElectrophoresis2012

Comparison of in-gel protein separation techniques commonly used for fractionation in mass spectrometry-based proteomic profiling.

Mohieddin Jafari, Vincent Primo, Gary B Smejkal, Eugene V Moskovets, Winston P Kuo, Alexander R Ivanov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Electrophoresis, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Proteomics techniques in protein biomarker discovery.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2024
    Review
  3. Genome Mining Uncovers NRPS and PKS Clusters inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Lineage-Specific Proteomic Signatures in theFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Mohieddin JafariHSPH Proteomics Resource, Department of Genetics and Complex Diseases, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Vincent Primo
Gary B Smejkal
Eugene V Moskovets
Winston P Kuo
Alexander R Ivanov

Funding

HARVARD CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE CENTER (UL1)UL1RR025758 · NCRR · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2008 to 2011
$91.4M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR 025758NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fractionation of complex samples at the cellular, subcellular, protein, or peptide level is an indispensable strategy to improve the sensitivity in mass spectrometry-based proteomic profiling. This study revisits, evaluates, and compares the most common gel-based protein separation techniques i.e. 1D SDS-PAGE, 1D preparative SDS-PAGE, IEF-IPG, and 2D-PAGE in their performance as fractionation approaches in nano LC-ESI-MS/MS analysis of a mixture of protein standards and mitochondrial extracts isolated from rat liver. This work demonstrates that all the above techniques provide complementary protein identification results, but 1D SDS-PAGE and IEF-IPG had the highest number of identifications. The IEF-IPG technique resulted in the highest average number of detected peptides per protein. The 2D-PAGE was evaluated as a protein fractionation approach. This work shows that the recovery of proteins and resulting proteolytic digests is highly dependent on the total volume of the gel matrix. The performed comparison of the fractionation techniques demonstrates the potential of a combination of orthogonal 1D SDS-PAGE and IEF-IPG for the improved sensitivity of profiling without significant decrease in throughput.

Indexed as

AnimalsChromatography, LiquidCluster AnalysisElectrophoresisMass SpectrometryMitochondria, LiverMitochondrial ProteinsPeptide FragmentsProteomicsRatsSensitivity and SpecificityMitochondrial ProteinsPeptide Fragments

Identifiers

PMID22899259
PMCPMC4234072

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.