ArticlePloS one2014
Reproducibility and consistency of proteomic experiments on natural populations of a non-model aquatic insect.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sample Preparation for Proteogenomics of Aquatic Invertebrates.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Protein expression parallels thermal tolerance and ecologic changes in the diversification of a diving beetle species complex.Heredity · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Population proteomics has a great potential to address evolutionary and ecological questions, but its use in wild populations of non-model organisms is hampered by uncontrolled sources of variation. Here we compare the response to temperature extremes of two geographically distant populations of a diving beetle species (Agabus ramblae) using 2-D DIGE. After one week of acclimation in the laboratory under standard conditions, a third of the specimens of each population were placed at either 4 or 27°C for 12 h, with another third left as a control. We then compared the protein expression level of three replicated samples of 2-3 specimens for each treatment. Within each population, variation between replicated samples of the same treatment was always lower than variation between treatments, except for some control samples that retained a wider range of expression levels. The two populations had a similar response, without significant differences in the number of protein spots over- or under-expressed in the pairwise comparisons between treatments. We identified exemplary proteins among those differently expressed between treatments, which proved to be proteins known to be related to thermal response or stress. Overall, our results indicate that specimens collected in the wild are suitable for proteomic analyses, as the additional sources of variation were not enough to mask the consistency and reproducibility of the response to the temperature treatments.
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.