Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27812413›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

Bone protein "extractomics": comparing the efficiency of bone protein extractions of

Elena R Schroeter, Caroline J DeHart, Mary H Schweitzer, Paul M Thomas, Neil L Kelleher

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Paleoproteomics.Chemical reviews · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elena R SchroeterDepartment of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University , Raleigh , NC , United States.
Caroline J DeHartProteomics Center of Excellence and Departments of Chemistry, Molecular Biosciences, and the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University , Evanston , IL , United States.
Mary H SchweitzerDepartment of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University , Raleigh , NC , United States.
Paul M ThomasProteomics Center of Excellence and Departments of Chemistry, Molecular Biosciences, and the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University , Evanston , IL , United States.
Neil L KelleherProteomics Center of Excellence and Departments of Chemistry, Molecular Biosciences, and the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University , Evanston , IL , United States.
Northwestern University · USNorth Carolina State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bone matrix proteinsBone protein extraction protocolsMass spectrometryMethods comparisonPaleoproteomicsProteomics

Identifiers

PMID27812413
PMCPMC5088622
OpenAlexW2541732293

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.