Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25852189›Full record

ArticleScience signaling2015

An analysis of critical factors for quantitative immunoblotting.

Kevin A Janes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science signaling, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 128 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
128citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

128 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guidelines for authors and reviewers on antibody use in physiology studies.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2018
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Cahn-Hilliard dynamical models for condensed biomolecular systems.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

68 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

1 author.

Kevin A JanesDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA. E-mail: kjanes@virginia.edu.

Funding

Systems-biology Approaches for Decoding Persistent Coxsackievirus B3 InfectionR21AI105970 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI JANES, KEVIN A · 2013 to 2014
$426k
NIAID NIH HHS 1-R21-AI105970NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI105970
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunoblotting (also known as Western blotting) combined with digital image analysis can be a reliable method for analyzing the abundance of proteins and protein modifications, but not every immunoblot-analysis combination produces an accurate result. I illustrate how sample preparation, protocol implementation, detection scheme, and normalization approach profoundly affect the quantitative performance of immunoblotting. This study implemented diagnostic experiments that assess an immunoblot-analysis workflow for accuracy and precision. The results showed that ignoring such diagnostics can lead to pseudoquantitative immunoblot data that markedly overestimate or underestimate true differences in protein abundance.

Indexed as

Blotting, WesternCell Line, TumorHumans

Identifiers

PMID25852189
PMCPMC4401487

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.