ArticleProteomics2018
A Novel Cell Fixation Method that Greatly Enhances Protein Identification in Microproteomic Studies Using Laser Capture Microdissection and Mass Spectrometry.
Article in Proteomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Mass spectrometry-based proteomics of FFPE tissues: progress, limitations, and clinical translation barriers.Clinical proteomics · 2025Review
- Betz cells of the primary motor cortex.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2024Review
- Authentication of a novel antibody to zebrafish collagen type XI alpha 1 chain (Col11a1a).BMC research notes · 2021Article
- Proximity labeling and other novel mass spectrometric approaches for spatiotemporal protein dynamics.Expert review of proteomics · 2021Review
- Utilization of Laser Capture Microdissection Coupled to Mass Spectrometry to Uncover the Proteome of Cellular Protrusions.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Tunneling nanotubes: A bridge for heterogeneity in glioblastoma and a new therapeutic target?Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2019Review
- A novel Microproteomic Approach Using Laser Capture Microdissection to Study Cellular Protrusions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Microproteomic studies have improved our knowledge of cell biology. Yet, with mass spectrometry (MS) analysis, accuracy can be lost for protein identification and quantification when using heterogeneous samples. Laser capture microdissection (LCM) allows for the enrichment of specific subsets of cells to study their proteome; however, sample fixation is necessary. Unfortunately, fixation hampers MS results due to protein cross-linking. The aim of this study was to identify both a fixation protocol and an extraction method that returns the best yield of proteins for downstream MS analysis, while preserving cellular structures. We compared glutaraldehyde (GLU), a common fixative to preserve cells, to dithiobispropionimidate (DTBP), a cleavable cross-linker. Our DTBP fixation/extraction protocol greatly increased the protein recovery. In fact, while 1000 GLU fixed cells returned only 159 unique protein hits, from 1464 unique peptides of 1994 unique collected spectra, 1000 DTBP fixed cells resulted in 567 unique collected protein hits, from 7542 unique peptides, of 10,401 unique collected spectra. That is, a 3.57-fold increase in protein hits, 5.15-fold increase in unique peptides, and a 5.22-fold increase in unique collected spectra. Overall, the novel protocol introduced here allows for a very efficient protein recovery and good sample quality for MS after sample collection using LCM.
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.