ArticleClinical proteomics2023
Combination of automated sample preparation and micro-flow LC-MS for high-throughput plasma proteomics.
Article in Clinical proteomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Flexible End-to-End Automated Sample Preparation Workflow Enables Standardized and Scalable Bottom-up Proteomics.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Simple and robust high-throughput serum proteomics workflow with low-microflow LC-MS/MS.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Rapid Plasma Proteome Profiling via Nanoparticle Protein Corona and Direct Infusion Mass Spectrometry.Journal of proteome research · 2024Article
- Plasma proteome profiling reveals biomarkers of chemotherapy resistance in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2024Article
- Automated Sample Preparation Workflow for Tandem Mass Tag-Based 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-invasive detection of blood-based markers is a critical clinical need. Plasma has become the main sample type for clinical proteomics research because it is easy to obtain and contains measurable protein biomarkers that can reveal disease-related physiological and pathological changes. Many efforts have been made to improve the depth of its identification, while there is an increasing need to improve the throughput and reproducibility of plasma proteomics analysis in order to adapt to the clinical large-scale sample analysis.
methodsWe have developed and optimized a robust plasma analysis workflow that combines an automated sample preparation platform with a micro-flow LC-MS-based detection method. The stability and reproducibility of the workflow were systematically evaluated and the workflow was applied to a proof-of-concept plasma proteome study of 30 colon cancer patients from three age groups.
resultsThis workflow can analyze dozens of samples simultaneously with high reproducibility. Without protein depletion and prefractionation, more than 300 protein groups can be identified in a single analysis with micro-flow LC-MS system on a Orbitrap Exploris 240 mass spectrometer, including quantification of 35 FDA approved disease markers. The quantitative precision of the entire workflow was acceptable with median CV of 9%. The preliminary proteomic analysis of colon cancer plasma from different age groups could be well separated with identification of potential colon cancer-related biomarkers.
conclusionsThis workflow is suitable for the analysis of large-scale clinical plasma samples with its simple and time-saving operation, and the results demonstrate the feasibility of discovering significantly changed plasma proteins and distinguishing different patient groups.
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.