ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2015
Comparison of three protein extraction procedures from toxic and non-toxic dinoflagellates for proteomics analysis.
Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biochemical Mapping ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Differentiating Two Closely RelatedToxins · 2020Article
- Production of high-quality two-dimensional gel electrophoresis profile for marine medaka samples by using Trizol-based protein extraction approaches.Proteome science · 2020Article
- Omics Analysis for Dinoflagellates Biology Research.Microorganisms · 2019Review
- An improved protein extraction method applied to cotton leaves is compatible with 2-DE and LC-MS.BMC genomics · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the Use of TRIzol-Based Protein Extraction Approach for Gel-Based Proteomic Analysis of Dried Seafood Products and Chinese Tonic Foods.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three methods for extraction and preparation of high-quality proteins from both toxic and non-toxic dinoflagellates for proteomics analysis, including Trizol method, Lysis method and Tris method, were compared with the subsequent protein separation profiles using 2-D differential gel electrophoresis (2-D DIGE), Coomassie Blue and silver staining. These methods showed suitability for proteins with different pIs and molecular weights. Tris method was better for low molecular weight and low pI protein isolation; whereas both Lysis and Trizol method were better for high-molecular weight and high pI protein purification. Trizol method showed good results with Alexandrium species and Gynodinium species, and the background in gel was much clearer than the other two methods. At the same time, only Lysis method caused breaking down of the target proteins. On the other hand, Trizol method obtained higher concentration of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase proteins by Western-blotting, while Tris method was the best for peridinin-chlorophyll-protein complexes protein and T1 protein preparation. DIGE was better than Coomassie Blue and silver staining, except for some limitations, such as the high cost of the dyes, relatively short shelf life and the requirements for extensive and special image capturing equipment. Some proteins related to PSTs synthesis in dinoflagellates are hydrophobic with high molecular weight or binding on membranes and Trizol method performed better than Tris method for these proteins. The Trizol method and 2-D DIGE were effective combination for proteomics investigations of dinoflagellates. This procedure allows reliable and high recovery efficiency of proteins from dinoflagellates for better understanding on their occurrence and toxin-production for physiological and biochemical information.
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.