ArticleJournal of proteome research2022
Addressing the Protease Bias in Quantitative Proteomics.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2022. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Enzyme Effect: Broadening the Horizon of MS Optimization to Nontryptic Digestion in Proteomics.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2025Article
- Protein swarm-based cause-effect analysis: effects of microRNAs on cooperation networks linking COVID-19 infections, atherosclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative shotgun proteomics analysis of wheat gluten proteins digested by various peptidases.Current research in food science · 2025Article
- Instrumentation at the Leading Edge of Proteomics.Analytical chemistry · 2024Review
- Effects of vitamin D signaling in cardiovascular disease: centrality of macrophage polarization.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing the Role of Trypsin in Quantitative Plasma and Single-Cell Proteomics toward Clinical Application.Analytical chemistry · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protein quantification strategies using multiple proteases have been shown to deliver poor interprotease accuracy in label-free mass spectrometry experiments. By utilizing six different proteases with different cleavage sites, this study explores the protease bias and its effect on accuracy and precision by using recombinant protein standards. We established 557 SRM assays, using a recombinant protein standard resource, toward 10 proteins in human plasma and determined their concentration with multiple proteases. The quantified peptides of these plasma proteins spanned 3 orders of magnitude (0.02-70 μM). In total, 60 peptides were used for absolute quantification and the majority of the peptides showed high robustness. The retained reproducibility was achieved by quantifying plasma proteins using spiked stable isotope standard recombinant proteins in a targeted proteomics workflow.
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.