Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25059473›Full record

ReviewExpert review of proteomics2014

The necessity of and strategies for improving confidence in the accuracy of western blots.

Rajeshwary Ghosh, Jennifer E Gilda, Aldrin V Gomes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Expert review of proteomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 142 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
142citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

142 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

82 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rajeshwary GhoshDepartment of Neurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior, University of California, Davis, 191 Briggs Hall, One Shields Avenue, CA 95616, USA.
Jennifer E Gilda
Aldrin V Gomes

Funding

Program AdministrationP01HL080101 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BERS, DONALD M · 2006 to 2015
$23.4M
The Role of the Proteasome in Troponin related CardiomyopathiesR01HL096819 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI GOMES, ALDRIN V. · 2010 to 2014
$1.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS HL080101NHLBI NIH HHS HL096819NHLBI NIH HHS P01 HL080101NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL096819
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Western blotting is one of the most commonly used laboratory techniques for identifying proteins and semi-quantifying protein amounts; however, several recent findings suggest that western blots may not be as reliable as previously assumed. This is not surprising since many labs are unaware of the limitations of western blotting. In this manuscript, we review essential strategies for improving confidence in the accuracy of western blots. These strategies include selecting the best normalization standard, proper sample preparation, determining the linear range for antibodies and protein stains relevant to the sample of interest, confirming the quality of the primary antibody, preventing signal saturation and accurately quantifying the signal intensity of the target protein. Although western blotting is a powerful and indispensable scientific technique that can be used to accurately quantify relative protein levels, it is necessary that proper experimental techniques and strategies are employed.

Indexed as

AntibodiesBlotting, WesternProteinsReference StandardsStaining and LabelingAntibodiesProteinshousekeeping proteinimmunoblotloading controlquantificationstain-free geltotal protein normalizationwestern blottingwestern blotting accuracywestern blotting strategy

Identifiers

PMID25059473
PMCPMC4791038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.