ArticleThe AAPS journal2015
Choice of LC-MS methods for the absolute quantification of drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters in human tissue: a comparative cost analysis.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeted Absolute Protein Quantification Using SILAC Internal Standard and Full-Length Protein Calibrators (TAQSI).Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Ultrasensitive Quantification of Drug-metabolizing Enzymes and Transporters in Small Sample Volume by Microflow LC-MS/MS.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2021Article
- Quantification of Proteins Involved in Intestinal Epithelial Handling of Xenobiotics.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021Article
- Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) and Hepatic Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Enzymes.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Article
- Toward a Consensus on Applying Quantitative Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Proteomics in Translational Pharmacology Research: A White Paper.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2019Article
- Quantitative Characterization of Major Hepatic UDP-Glucuronosyltransferase Enzymes in Human Liver Microsomes: Comparison of Two Proteomic Methods and Correlation with Catalytic Activity.Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2017Article
- Targeted absolute quantitative proteomics with SILAC internal standards and unlabeled full-length protein calibrators (TAQSI).Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quantification of drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters is important for in vitro-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) of xenobiotic clearance, which has become an integral part of drug development. There are different mass spectrometry-based techniques used for quantitative proteomics, and as more laboratories are opting for the use of these methods, selecting the most appropriate tool is becoming a concern. For the first time, we attempt to determine the significance of cost of different LC-MS methods of quantitative analysis of these proteins and to present a framework to objectively assess the choice of the techniques. Based on our analysis, quantification using labeled internal standards is more expensive per sample but provides higher quality data than label-free quantification. Quantification using absolute quantification synthetic peptides is the approach of choice for analyzing less than nine proteins, whereas when quantifying a defined set of proteins (10-50), such as enzymes, in a reasonably large number of samples (20-100), the quantification concatemer technique is more economical, followed by label-free quantification. When analyzing proteomes or sub-proteomes (≥500 proteins), label-free quantification is more cost-effective than the use of labeled internal standards. A cost-benefit approach is described to assess the choice of the most appropriate mass spectrometry-based approach for the quantification of proteins relevant to IVIVE.
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.