ArticleJournal of proteome research2023
Evaluation of the Binding Preference of Microtubes for Nanoproteomics Sample Preparation.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Small-molecule binding-site discovery using silyl ether-enabled chemoproteomics.Nature chemistry · 2026Article
- Repurposed 3D Printer Allows Economical and Programmable Fraction Collection for Proteomics of Nanogram Scale Samples.Analytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Rapid, One-Step Sample Processing for Label-Free Single-Cell Proteomics.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Nonspecific binding between the protein and the container is an often-neglected cause of sample loss in large-scale proteomics sample preparation. In nanoproteomics, due to the small sample size, this absorption loss is no longer negligible, and researchers often adopt low binding plasticware to minimize the sample loss. However, there has been little discussion in the scientific literature on the differences in microtube performance on reducing protein/peptide binding. Therefore, the exact impact of sample loss during the sample preparation is not well understood. Here, we investigated the protein/peptide loss during the nanoproteomics experiment process. Our results showed that there are significant differences in nonspecific binding among the tested microtubes, with a protein recovery rate ranging from less than 10% to over 90% for different microtubes. Interestingly, we found that the storage temperature could also be one of the key factors that contribute to protein recovery from the plastic container. In addition, we investigated the binding preferences of different microtubes by the physical characteristics of the identified proteins and peptides, such as isoelectric point, hydrophobicity, length, and charge. Our findings help to better understand protein/peptide loss in proteomics sample preparation and provide further guidance for researchers in choosing proper containers for their precious sample.
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.