ArticleClinical proteomics2014
Optimization for peptide sample preparation for urine peptidomics.
Article in Clinical proteomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent progress in mass spectrometry-based urinary proteomics.Clinical proteomics · 2024Review
- The Pharmacokinetics in Mice and Cell Uptake of Thymus Immunosuppressive Pentapeptide Using LC-MS/MS Analysis.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Peptidomics analysis reveals changes in small urinary peptides in patients with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- An efficient urine peptidomics workflow identifies chemically defined dietary gluten peptides from patients with celiac disease.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Bioinformatics for Renal and Urinary Proteomics: Call for Aggrandization.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Identification of pathogens from native urine samples by MALDI-TOF/TOF tandem mass spectrometry.Clinical proteomics · 2020Article
- A Novel Multi-Biomarker Assay for Non-Invasive Quantitative Monitoring of Kidney Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Assessment of Postdonation Outcomes in US Living Kidney Donors Using Publicly Available Data Sets.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Candidate Urine Peptide Biomarkers for IgA Nephropathy: Where Are We Now?Disease markers · 2018Review
- DMSO Assisted Electrospray Ionization for the Detection of Small Peptide Hormones in Urine by Dilute-and-Shoot-Liquid-Chromatography-High Resolution Mass Spectrometry.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2017Article
- Biodegradation of alkaline lignin byBiotechnology for biofuels · 2017Article
- Comprehensive Metaproteomic Analyses of Urine in the Presence and Absence of Neutrophil-Associated Inflammation in the Urinary Tract.Theranostics · 2017Article
- Mining the human urine proteome for monitoring renal transplant injury.Kidney international · 2016Article
- Serum Proteome Profiles in Stricturing Crohn's Disease: A Pilot Study.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2015Article
- Syringe-push membrane absorption as a simple rapid method of urine preparation for clinical proteomics.Clinical proteomics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Analysis of native or endogenous peptides in biofluids can provide valuable insights into disease mechanisms. Furthermore, the detected peptides may also have utility as potential biomarkers for non-invasive monitoring of human diseases. The non-invasive nature of urine collection and the abundance of peptides in the urine makes analysis by high-throughput 'peptidomics' methods , an attractive approach for investigating the pathogenesis of renal disease. However, urine peptidomics methodologies can be problematic with regards to difficulties associated with sample preparation. The urine matrix can provide significant background interference in making the analytical measurements that it hampers both the identification of peptides and the depth of the peptidomics read when utilizing LC-MS based peptidome analysis. We report on a novel adaptation of the standard solid phase extraction (SPE) method to a modified SPE (mSPE) approach for improved peptide yield and analysis sensitivity with LC-MS based peptidomics in terms of time, cost, clogging of the LC-MS column, peptide yield, peptide quality, and number of peptides identified by each method. Expense and time requirements were comparable for both SPE and mSPE, but more interfering contaminants from the urine matrix were evident in the SPE preparations (e.g., clogging of the LC-MS columns, yellowish background coloration of prepared samples due to retained urobilin, lower peptide yields) when compared to the mSPE method. When we compared data from technical replicates of 4 runs, the mSPE method provided significantly improved efficiencies for the preparation of samples from urine (e.g., mSPE peptide identification 82% versus 18% with SPE; p = 8.92E-05). Additionally, peptide identifications, when applying the mSPE method, highlighted the biology of differential activation of urine peptidases during acute renal transplant rejection with distinct laddering of specific peptides, which was obscured for most proteins when utilizing the conventional SPE method. In conclusion, the mSPE method was found to be superior to the conventional, standard SPE method for urine peptide sample preparation when applying LC-MS peptidomics analysis due to the optimized sample clean up that provided improved experimental inference from the confidently identified peptides.
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.