ArticleJournal of biomolecular techniques : JBT2014
Evaluation of urinary protein precipitation protocols for the multidisciplinary approach to the study of chronic pelvic pain research network.
Article in Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Urinary Proteome Differs with the Presence and Type of Breast Cancer.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- Urine-HILIC: Automated Sample Preparation for Bottom-Up Urinary Proteome Profiling in Clinical Proteomics.Proteomes · 2023Article
- Association of Longitudinal Changes in Symptoms and Urinary Biomarkers in Patients with Urological Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome: A MAPP Research Network Study.The Journal of urology · 2021Article
- Relationship Between Blood Cytokine Levels, Psychological Comorbidity, and Widespreadness of Pain in Chronic Pelvic Pain.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
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
Standardization of sample collection, shipping, and storage has been a major focus of biorepositories servicing large, multi-institute studies. The standardization of total protein concentration measurements may also provide an important metric for characterizing biospecimens. The measurement of total protein concentration in urine is challenging because of widely variable sample dilutions obtained in the clinic and the lack of a reference matrix for use with a standard curve and blank subtraction. Urinary proteins are therefore typically precipitated and reconstituted in a reference solution before quantitation. We have tested three different methods for protein precipitation and evaluated them using variability in total protein concentration measurement as a metric. The methods were tested on four urine samples ranging from very concentrated to very dilute. A method using a commercially available kit provided the most reproducible results, with average coefficients of variation <10%. Addition of a freeze/thaw did not lead to significant protein loss or additional variability. Samples were titrated and the measurements obtained appeared to be linearly correlated with sample starting volume. This method was applied to analysis of 77 urine biorepository samples and provided reproducible results when the same sample was assayed on different microwell plates.
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.