Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27263489›Full record

ReviewScandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports2017

An overview of technical considerations for Western blotting applications to physiological research.

J J Bass, D J Wilkinson, D Rankin, B E Phillips, N J Szewczyk, K Smith, P J Atherton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 164 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
164citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

164 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Brief guide to western blot assays.Molecules and cells · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guidelines for authors and reviewers on antibody use in physiology studies.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

104 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

7 authors.

J J BassMRC/ARUK Centre of Excellence for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
D J WilkinsonMRC/ARUK Centre of Excellence for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
D RankinMRC/ARUK Centre of Excellence for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
B E PhillipsMRC/ARUK Centre of Excellence for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
N J SzewczykMRC/ARUK Centre of Excellence for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
K SmithMRC/ARUK Centre of Excellence for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
P J AthertonMRC/ARUK Centre of Excellence for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.

Funding

Gene Networks Regulating Muscle Protein DegradationR01AR054342 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM · PI SZEWCZYK, NATHANIEL J. · 2007 to 2010
$902k
Medical Research Council MR/P021220/1NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR054342
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The applications of Western/immunoblotting (WB) techniques have reached multiple layers of the scientific community and are now considered routine procedures in the field of physiology. This is none more so than in relation to skeletal muscle physiology (i.e., resolving the mechanisms underpinning adaptations to exercise). Indeed, the inclusion of WB data is now considered an essential aspect of many such physiological publications to provide mechanistic insight into regulatory processes. Despite this popularity, and due to the ubiquitous and relatively inexpensive availability of WB equipment, the quality of WB in publications and subsequent analysis and interpretation of the data can be variable, perhaps resulting in spurious conclusions. This may be due to poor laboratory technique and/or lack of comprehension of the critical steps involved in WB and what quality control procedures should be in place to ensure robust data generation. The present review aims to provide a detailed description and critique of WB procedures and technicalities, from sample collection through preparation, blotting and detection, to analysis of the data collected. We aim to provide the reader with improved expertise to critically conduct, evaluate, and troubleshoot the WB process, to produce reproducible and reliable blots.

Indexed as

Blotting, WesternData AccuracyHumansMuscle, SkeletalPhysiologySpecimen HandlingphysiologySDS PAGEskeletal muscleWesten blot

Identifiers

PMID27263489
PMCPMC5138151

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.