ArticleJournal of chromatography. A2016
Characterization of an immobilized enzyme reactor for on-line protein digestion.
Article in Journal of chromatography. A, 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, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immobilized enzyme microreactors for analysis of tryptic peptides in β-casein and β-lactoglobulin.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Immunoaffinity extraction followed by enzymatic digestion for the isolation and identification of proteins employing automated μSPE reactors and mass spectrometry.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2023Article
- 3D-Printed High-Pressure-Resistant Immobilized Enzyme Microreactor (μIMER) for Protein Analysis.Analytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Development of a multidimensional online method for the characterization and quantification of monoclonal antibodies using immobilized flow-through enzyme reactors.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2021Article
- A versatile ceramic capillary membrane reactor system for continuous enzyme-catalyzed hydrolysis.Engineering in life sciences · 2021Article
- Monolithic Papain-Immobilized Enzyme Reactors for Automated Structural Characterization of Monoclonal Antibodies.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Article
- Effects of proteases on L-glutamic acid fermentation.Bioengineered · 2019Article
- Investigating Monoliths (Vinyl Azlactone-co-Ethylene Dimethacrylate) as a Support for Enzymes and Drugs, for Proteomics and Drug-Target Studies.Frontiers in chemistry · 2019Article
- Systematic Evaluation of Immobilized Trypsin-Based Fast Protein Digestion for Deep and High-Throughput Bottom-Up Proteomics.Proteomics · 2018Article
- Optimization of the linear quantification range of an online trypsin digestion coupled liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) platform.Instrumentation science & technology · 2017Article
- Performance comparison of three trypsin columns used in liquid chromatography.Journal of chromatography. A · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the developments for faster liquid chromatographic and mass spectral detection techniques, the standard in-solution protein digestion for proteomic analyses has remained relatively unchanged. The typical in-solution trypsin protein digestion is usually the slowest part of the workflow, albeit one of the most important. The development of a highly efficient immobilized enzyme reactor (IMER) with rapid performance for on-line protein digestion would greatly decrease the analysis time involved in a proteomic workflow. Presented here is the development of a silica based IMER for on-line protein digestion, which produced rapid digestions in the presence of organic mobile phase for both model proteins and a complex sample consisting of the insoluble portion of a yeast cell lysate. Protein sequence coverage and identifications evaluated between the IMER and in-solution digestions were comparable. Overall, for a yeast cell lysate with only a 10s volumetric residence time on-column, the IMER identified 507 proteins while the in-solution digestion identified 490. There were no significant differences observed based on identified protein's molecular weight or isoelectric point between the two digestion methods. Implementation of the IMER into the proteomic workflow provided similar protein identification results, automation for sample analysis, and reduced the analysis time by 15h.
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.