ArticleJournal of proteome research2014
Interference-free proteome quantification with MS/MS-based isobaric isotopologue detection.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural signature of plasma proteins classifies the status of Alzheimer's disease.Nature aging · 2026Article
- A Covalent Protein Painting Assay Differentiates Amyloid-β Polymorphs in Alzheimer Disease.Journal of proteome research · 2026Article
- Using in vivo intact structure for system-wide quantitative analysis of changes in proteins.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Coisolation of Peptide Pairs for Peptide Identification and MS/MS-Based Quantification.Analytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Protein Footprinting via Covalent Protein Painting Reveals Structural Changes of the Proteome in Alzheimer's Disease.Journal of proteome research · 2021Article
- Proteomics INTegrator (PINT): An Online Tool To Store, Query, and Visualize Large Proteomics Experiment Results.Journal of proteome research · 2019Article
- Deducing the presence of proteins and proteoforms in quantitative proteomics.Nature communications · 2018Article
- Increased proteomic complexity inScience advances · 2018Article
- Mass spectrometry-based proteomics for pre-eclampsia and preterm birth.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015Review
- Quantitative proteomic analysis of histone modifications.Chemical reviews · 2015Review
- Multiplexed quantification for data-independent acquisition.Analytical chemistry · 2015Article
- Peptide dimethylation: fragmentation control via distancing the dimethylamino group.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2014Article
- NeuCode labels for relative protein quantification.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Chemical labeling of peptides prior to shotgun proteomics allows relative quantification of proteins in biological samples independent of sample origin. Current strategies utilize isobaric labels that fragment into reporter ions. However, quantification of reporter ions results in distorted ratio measurements due to contaminating peptides that are co-selected in the same precursor isolation window. Here, we show that quantitation of isobaric peptide fragment isotopologues in tandem mass spectra reduces precursor interference. The method is based on the relative quantitation of isobaric isotopologues of dimethylated peptide fragments in tandem mass spectra following higher energy collisional dissociation (HCD). The approach enables precise quantification of a proteome down to single spectra per protein and quantifies >90% of proteins in a MudPIT experiment and accurately measures proteins in a model cell line for cystic fibrosis.
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.