ArticleAnalytical chemistry2018
DIA-SIFT: A Precursor and Product Ion Filter for Accurate Stable Isotope Data-Independent Acquisition Proteomics.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcriptomic and proteomic profiling of piroplasmosis resistance in Yunnan humped cattle.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Instrumentation at the Leading Edge of Proteomics.Analytical chemistry · 2024Review
- Strategies for Increasing the Depth and Throughput of Protein Analysis by plexDIA.Journal of proteome research · 2023Review
- Increasing the throughput of sensitive proteomics by plexDIA.Nature biotechnology · 2023Article
- Coisolation of Peptide Pairs for Peptide Identification and MS/MS-Based Quantification.Analytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Improved SILAC Quantification with Data-Independent Acquisition to Investigate Bortezomib-Induced Protein Degradation.Journal of proteome research · 2021Article
- BoxCarmax: A High-Selectivity Data-Independent Acquisition Mass Spectrometry Method for the Analysis of Protein Turnover and Complex Samples.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
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
Quantitative mass spectrometry-based protein profiling is widely used to measure protein levels across different treatments or disease states, yet current mass spectrometry acquisition methods present distinct limitations. While data-independent acquisition (DIA) bypasses the stochastic nature of data-dependent acquisition (DDA), fragment spectra derived from DIA are often complex and challenging to deconvolve. In-line ion mobility separation (IMS) adds an additional dimension to increase peak capacity for more efficient product ion assignment. As a similar strategy to sequential window acquisition methods (SWATH), IMS-enabled DIA methods rival DDA methods for protein annotation. Here we evaluate IMS-DIA quantitative accuracy using stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC). Since SILAC analysis doubles the sample complexity, we find that IMS-DIA analysis is not sufficiently accurate for sensitive quantitation. However, SILAC precursor pairs share common retention and drift times, and both species cofragment to yield multiple quantifiable isotopic y-ion peak pairs. Since y-ion SILAC ratios are intrinsic for each quantified precursor, combined MS1 and y-ion ratio analysis significantly increases the total number of measurements. With increased sampling, we present DIA-SIFT ( SILAC Intrinsic Filtering Tool), a simple statistical algorithm to identify and eliminate poorly quantified MS1 and/or MS2 events. DIA-SIFT combines both MS1 and y-ion ratios, removes outliers, and provides more accurate and precise quantitation (<15% CV) without removing any proteins from the final analysis. Overall, pooled MS1 and MS2 quantitation increases sampling in IMS-DIA SILAC analyses for accurate and precise quantitation.
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.