ArticlePeerJ2016
Bone protein "extractomics": comparing the efficiency of bone protein extractions of
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Comparison of Bone Proteome Extraction Methods to Allow for Integrated Proteomics-Metabolomics Correlation.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- An unclean slate, discrepancies between food input and recovered protein signal from experimental foodcrusts.PloS one · 2025Article
- Bone Proteomics Method Optimization for Forensic Investigations.Journal of proteome research · 2024Article
- Comparing extraction method efficiency for high-throughput palaeoproteomic bone species identification.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Extraction Protocol for Parallel Analysis of Proteins and DNA from Ancient Teeth and Dental Calculus.Journal of proteome research · 2023Article
- Paleoproteomics.Chemical reviews · 2022Review
- A predictive model for vertebrate bone identification from collagen using proteomic mass spectrometry.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Molecular preservation in mammoth bone and variation based on burial environment.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Palaeoproteomic identification of breast milk protein residues from the archaeological skeletal remains of a neonatal dog.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Proteomic method to extract, concentrate, digest and enrich peptides from fossils with coloured (humic) substances for mass spectrometry analyses.Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proteomic studies of bone require specialized extraction protocols to demineralize and solubilize proteins from within the bone matrix. Although various protocols exist for bone protein recovery, little is known about how discrete steps in each protocol affect the subset of the bone proteome recovered by mass spectrometry (MS) analyses. Characterizing these different "extractomes" will provide critical data for development of novel and more efficient protein extraction methodologies for fossils. Here, we analyze 22 unique sub-extractions of chicken bone and directly compare individual extraction components for their total protein yield and diversity and coverage of bone proteins identified by MS. We extracted proteins using different combinations and ratios of demineralizing reagents, protein-solubilizing reagents, and post-extraction buffer removal methods, then evaluated tryptic digests from 20 µg aliquots of each fraction by tandem MS/MS on a 12T FT-ICR mass spectrometer. We compared total numbers of peptide spectral matches, peptides, and proteins identified from each fraction, the redundancy of protein identifications between discrete steps of extraction methods, and the sequence coverage obtained for select, abundant proteins. Although both alpha chains of collagen I (the most abundant protein in bone) were found in all fractions, other collagenous and non-collagenous proteins (e.g., apolipoprotein, osteonectin, hemoglobin) were differentially identified. We found that when a standardized amount of extracted proteins was analyzed, extraction steps that yielded the most protein (by weight) from bone were often
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.