ArticleProteomics2018
Systematic Evaluation of Immobilized Trypsin-Based Fast Protein Digestion for Deep and High-Throughput Bottom-Up Proteomics.
Article in Proteomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- High-resolution mass spectrometry measurement of N-terminal carbamylated hemoglobin as a potential marker for chronic diseases with elevated blood urea levels.Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab · 2025Article
- Deep Intact Proteoform Characterization in Human Cell Lysate Using High-pH and Low-pH Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2019Article
- Microscale Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography/Capillary Zone Electrophoresis-Tandem Mass Spectrometry for Deep and Highly Sensitive Bottom-Up Proteomics: Identification of 7500 Proteins with Five Micrograms of an MCF7 Proteome Digest.Analytical chemistry · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Immobilized trypsin (IM) has been recognized as an alternative to free trypsin (FT) for accelerating protein digestion 30 years ago. However, some questions of IM still need to be answered. How does the solid matrix of IM influence its preference for protein cleavage and how well can IM perform for deep bottom-up proteomics compared to FT? By analyzing Escherichia coli proteome samples digested with amine or carboxyl functionalized magnetic bead-based IM (IM-N or IM-C) or FT, it is observed that IM-N with the nearly neutral solid matrix, IM-C with the negatively charged solid matrix, and FT have similar cleavage preference considering the microenvironment surrounding the cleavage sites. IM-N (15 min) and FT (12 h) both approach 9000 protein identifications (IDs) from a mouse brain proteome. Compared to FT, IM-N has no bias in the digestion of proteins that are involved in various biological processes, are located in different components of cells, have diverse functions, and are expressed in varying abundance. A high-throughput bottom-up proteomics workflow comprising IM-N-based rapid protein cleavage and fast CZE-MS/MS enables the completion of protein sample preparation, CZE-MS/MS analysis, and data analysis in only 3 h, resulting in 1000 protein IDs from the mouse brain proteome.
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.