Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26750110›Full record

ArticleMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP2016

Direct and Absolute Quantification of over 1800 Yeast Proteins via Selected Reaction Monitoring.

Craig Lawless, Stephen W Holman, Philip Brownridge, Karin Lanthaler, Victoria M Harman, Rachel Watkins, Dean E Hammond, Rebecca L Miller, Paul F G Sims, Christopher M Grant and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Estimating Total Quantitative Protein Content inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Incorporation of a unified protein abundance dataset into the Saccharomyces genome database.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors.

Craig LawlessFrom the ‡Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK;
Stephen W Holman§Centre for Proteome Research, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Philip Brownridge§Centre for Proteome Research, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Karin LanthalerFrom the ‡Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK;
Victoria M Harman§Centre for Proteome Research, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Rachel WatkinsFrom the ‡Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK;
Dean E Hammond§Centre for Proteome Research, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Rebecca L Miller§Centre for Proteome Research, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Paul F G SimsFrom the ‡Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK;
Christopher M GrantFrom the ‡Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK;
Claire E Eyers§Centre for Proteome Research, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Robert J Beynon§Centre for Proteome Research, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Simon J HubbardFrom the ‡Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK; simon.hubbard@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8601-9524

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/G009058/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/G009112/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Defining intracellular protein concentration is critical in molecular systems biology. Although strategies for determining relative protein changes are available, defining robust absolute values in copies per cell has proven significantly more challenging. Here we present a reference data set quantifying over 1800Saccharomyces cerevisiaeproteins by direct means using protein-specific stable-isotope labeled internal standards and selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mass spectrometry, far exceeding any previous study. This was achieved by careful design of over 100 QconCAT recombinant proteins as standards, defining 1167 proteins in terms of copies per cell and upper limits on a further 668, with robust CVs routinely less than 20%. The selected reaction monitoring-derived proteome is compared with existing quantitative data sets, highlighting the disparities between methodologies. Coupled with a quantification of the transcriptome by RNA-seq taken from the same cells, these data support revised estimates of several fundamental molecular parameters: a total protein count of ∼100 million molecules-per-cell, a median of ∼1000 proteins-per-transcript, and a linear model of protein translation explaining 70% of the variance in translation rate. This work contributes a "gold-standard" reference yeast proteome (including 532 values based on high quality, dual peptide quantification) that can be widely used in systems models and for other comparative studies.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingIsotope LabelingLinear ModelsMass SpectrometryProteomicsRecombinant ProteinsReproducibility of ResultsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsSequence Analysis, RNARecombinant ProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins

Identifiers

PMID26750110
PMCPMC4824857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.