ArticleJournal of proteome research2013
In-depth proteomic analysis of mouse cochlear sensory epithelium by mass spectrometry.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2013. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcriptomic Analysis Identifies Candidate Genes for Differential Expression duringbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Detergent-Assisted Protein Digestion-On the Way to Avoid the Key Bottleneck of Shotgun Bottom-Up Proteomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Biomarkers in Vestibular Schwannoma-Associated Hearing Loss.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Review
- Label-free quantitative mass spectrometry analysis of differential protein expression in the developing cochlear sensory epithelium.Proteome science · 2018Article
- Global Analysis of Protein Expression of Inner Ear Hair Cells.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2017Article
- Article
- PSIP1/LEDGF: a new gene likely involved in sensorineural progressive hearing loss.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Bottom-up and shotgun proteomics to identify a comprehensive cochlear proteome.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Proteomic analysis of sensory organs such as the cochlea is challenging due to its small size and difficulties with membrane protein isolation. Mass spectrometry in conjunction with separation methods can provide a more comprehensive proteome, because of the ability to enrich protein samples, detect hydrophobic proteins, and identify low abundant proteins by reducing the proteome dynamic range. GELFrEE as well as different separation and digestion techniques were combined with FASP and nanoLC-MS/MS to obtain an in-depth proteome analysis of cochlear sensory epithelium from 30-day-old mice. Digestion with LysC/trypsin followed by SCX fractionation and multiple nanoLC-MS/MS analyses identified 3773 proteins with a 1% FDR. Of these, 694 protein IDs were in the plasmalemma. Protein IDs obtained by combining outcomes from GELFrEE/LysC/trypsin with GELFrEE/trypsin/trypsin generated 2779 proteins, of which 606 additional proteins were identified using the GELFrEE/LysC/trypsin approach. Combining results from the different techniques resulted in a total of 4620 IDs, including a number of previously unreported proteins. GO analyses showed high expression of binding and catalytic proteins as well as proteins associated with metabolism. The results show that the application of multiple techniques is needed to provide an exhaustive proteome of the cochlear sensory epithelium that includes many membrane proteins. The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium with the data set identifier PXD000231.
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.