ArticleAnalytical biochemistry2013
Pressure-assisted sample preparation for proteomic analysis.
Article in Analytical biochemistry, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization of protein extraction and digestion workflows for proteomic analysis of saliva, salivary stones and kidney stones.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- Targeted proteomics for cancer biomarker verification and validation.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2022Review
- Biomonitoring of Ambient Outdoor Air Pollutant Exposure in Humans Using Targeted Serum Albumin Adductomics.Chemical research in toxicology · 2021Article
- MS1 ion current-based quantitative proteomics: A promising solution for reliable analysis of large biological cohorts.Mass spectrometry reviews · 2019Review
- Toward a Consensus on Applying Quantitative Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Proteomics in Translational Pharmacology Research: A White Paper.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2019Article
- Characterization of longitudinal canal tissue in the acorn barnacle Amphibalanus amphitrite.PloS one · 2018Article
- The LINK-A lncRNA interacts with PtdIns(3,4,5)PNature cell biology · 2017Article
- Adductomics Pipeline for Untargeted Analysis of Modifications to Cys34 of Human Serum Albumin.Analytical chemistry · 2016Article
- Fast Enzymatic Processing of Proteins for MS Detection with a Flow-through Microreactor.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2016Article
- Profiling post-translational modifications of histones in human monocyte-derived macrophages.Proteome science · 2015Article
- Systems biology studies of adult paragonimus lung flukes facilitate the identification of immunodominant parasite antigens.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pressure-assisted digestion of proteins, also known as pressure cycling technology (PCT), using a Barocycler NEP 2320 was compared with the conventional method using atmospheric pressure. Our objective was to demonstrate that PCT provides more controlled enzymatic digestion of proteins than prolonged digestion at atmospheric pressure ranging from 18 to 24 h. More controlled digestion would be beneficial for studies of highly posttranslationally modified protein such as histones. For the comparison of these two techniques, recombinant and native histone H4 were used as model proteins. PCT was optimized for pressure and time, and it was found to be most effective at 15 kpsi for 120 min of incubation. In conclusion, the PCT method was found to be much faster than using atmospheric pressure. PCT was also found to allow for unambiguous control of digestion parameters and to provide a high yield of sequence coverage compared with atmospheric pressure.
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.