ArticleJournal of proteome research2020
Comparative Analysis of Quantitative Mass Spectrometric Methods for Subcellular Proteomics.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerebrospinal Fluid Protein Biomarker Discovery in CLN3.Journal of proteome research · 2023Article
- Proteomic changes associated with racial background and sepsis survival outcomes.Molecular omics · 2022Article
- An Optimized Comparative Proteomic Approach as a Tool in Neurodegenerative Disease Research.Cells · 2022Review
- A Method to Estimate the Distribution of Proteins across Multiple Compartments Using Data from Quantitative Proteomics Subcellular Fractionation Experiments.Journal of proteome research · 2022Article
- Biologic correlates of beneficial convalescent plasma therapy in a COVID-19 patient reveal disease resolution mechanisms.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2022Article
- LC-MS peak assignment based on unanimous selection by six machine learning algorithms.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Proximity labeling and other novel mass spectrometric approaches for spatiotemporal protein dynamics.Expert review of proteomics · 2021Review
- Comparison of MSAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Organellar Maps Through Proteomic Profiling - A Conceptual Guide.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Knowledge of intracellular location can provide important insights into the function of proteins and their respective organelles, and there is interest in combining classical subcellular fractionation with quantitative mass spectrometry to create global cellular maps. To evaluate mass spectrometric approaches specifically for this application, we analyzed rat liver differential centrifugation and Nycodenz density gradient subcellular fractions by tandem mass tag (TMT) isobaric labeling with reporter ion measurement at the MS2 and MS3 level and with two different label-free peak integration approaches, MS1 and data independent acquisition (DIA). TMT-MS2 provided the greatest proteome coverage, but ratio compression from contaminating background ions resulted in a narrower accurate dynamic range compared to TMT-MS3, MS1, and DIA, which were similar. Using a protein clustering approach to evaluate data quality by assignment of reference proteins to their correct compartments, all methods performed well, with isobaric labeling approaches providing the highest quality localization. Finally, TMT-MS2 gave the lowest percentage of missing quantifiable data when analyzing orthogonal fractionation methods containing overlapping proteomes. In summary, despite inaccuracies resulting from ratio compression, data obtained by TMT-MS2 assigned protein localization as well as other methods but achieved the highest proteome coverage with the lowest proportion of missing values.
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.