ArticleJournal of chromatography. A2013
Optimized superficially porous particles for protein separations.
Article in Journal of chromatography. A, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Top-Down Mass Spectrometry and Its Current Applications in Biomarker Discovery in Aging and Age-Related Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Reversed-phase chromatography with large pore superficially porous particles for high throughput immunoglobulin GJournal of chromatography. A · 2017Article
- Continuous Elution Proteoform Identification of Myelin Basic Protein by Superficially Porous Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography and Fourier Transform Mass Spectrometry.Analytical chemistry · 2017Article
- Superficially porous particles with 1000Å pores for large biomolecule high performance liquid chromatography and polymer size exclusion chromatography.Journal of chromatography. A · 2017Article
- Size exclusion chromatography with superficially porous particles.Journal of chromatography. A · 2017Article
- Different Stationary Phase Selectivities and Morphologies for Intact Protein Separations.Chromatographia · 2017Review
- A simple microfluidic chip design for fundamental bioseparation.Journal of analytical methods in chemistry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Continuing interest in larger therapeutic molecules by pharmaceutical and biotech companies provides the need for improved tools for examining these molecules both during the discovery phase and later during quality control. To meet this need, larger pore superficially porous particles with appropriate surface properties (Fused-Core(®) particles) have been developed with a pore size of 400 Å, allowing large molecules (<500 kDa) unrestricted access to the bonded phase. In addition, a particle size (3.4 μm) is employed that allows high-efficiency, low-pressure separations suitable for potentially pressure-sensitive proteins. A study of the shell thickness of the new fused-core particles suggests a compromise between a short diffusion path and high efficiency versus adequate retention and mass load tolerance. In addition, superior performance for the reversed-phase separation of proteins requires that specific design properties for the bonded-phase should be incorporated. As a result, columns of the new particles with unique bonded phases show excellent stability and high compatibility with mass spectrometry-suitable mobile phases. This report includes fast separations of intact protein mixtures, as well as examples of very high-resolution separations of larger monoclonal antibody materials and associated variants. Investigations of protein recovery, sample loading and dynamic range for analysis are shown. The advantages of these new 400 Å fused-core particles, specifically designed for protein analysis, over traditional particles for protein separations are demonstrated.
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.