Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35931778›Full record

ReviewNature protocols2022

High-throughput proteomic sample preparation using pressure cycling technology.

Xue Cai, Zhangzhi Xue, Chunlong Wu, Rui Sun, Liujia Qian, Liang Yue, Weigang Ge, Xiao Yi, Wei Liu, Chen Chen and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Xue CaiWestlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-2100
Zhangzhi XueWestlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China.
Chunlong WuWestlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. No.1, Hangzhou, China.
Rui SunWestlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China.
Liujia QianWestlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China.
Liang YueWestlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China.
Weigang GeWestlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. No.1, Hangzhou, China.
Xiao YiWestlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. No.1, Hangzhou, China.
Wei LiuWestlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. No.1, Hangzhou, China.
Chen ChenWestlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. No.1, Hangzhou, China.
Huanhuan GaoWestlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. No.1, Hangzhou, China.
Jing YuWestlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. No.1, Hangzhou, China.
Luang XuWestlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. No.1, Hangzhou, China.
Yi ZhuWestlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. zhuyi@westlake.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0429-0802
Tiannan GuoWestlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3869-7651

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput lysis and proteolytic digestion of biopsy-level tissue specimens is a major bottleneck for clinical proteomics. Here we describe a detailed protocol of pressure cycling technology (PCT)-assisted sample preparation for proteomic analysis of biopsy tissues. A piece of fresh frozen or formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue weighing ~0.1-2 mg is placed in a 150 μL pressure-resistant tube called a PCT-MicroTube with proper lysis buffer. After closing with a PCT-MicroPestle, a batch of 16 PCT-MicroTubes are placed in a Barocycler, which imposes oscillating pressure to the samples from one atmosphere to up to ~3,000 times atmospheric pressure. The pressure cycling schemes are optimized for tissue lysis and protein digestion, and can be programmed in the Barocycler to allow reproducible, robust and efficient protein extraction and proteolysis digestion for mass spectrometry-based proteomics. This method allows effective preparation of not only fresh frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue, but also cells, feces and tear strips. It takes ~3 h to process 16 samples in one batch. The resulting peptides can be analyzed by various mass spectrometry-based proteomics methods. We demonstrate the applications of this protocol with mouse kidney tissue and eight types of human tumors.

Indexed as

PeptidesProteomicsAnimalsFormaldehydeHumansMass SpectrometryMiceParaffin EmbeddingTechnologyTissue FixationFormaldehydePeptides

Identifiers

PMID35931778
PMCPMC9362583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.