ArticleJournal of chromatography. A2023
Combining offline high performance liquid chromatography fractionation of peptides and intact proteins to enhance proteome coverage in bottom-up proteomics.
Article in Journal of chromatography. A, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a sensitive HPLC-MS/MS method for the analysis of semaglutide in human plasma.Bioanalysis · 2026Article
- Establishing Quality Control Metrics for Large-Scale Plasma Proteomic Sample Preparation.ACS measurement science au · 2024Article
- Comparative proteomics reveals that fatty acid metabolism is involved in myocardial adaptation to chronic hypoxic injury.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Offline peptide separation (PS) using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is currently used to enhance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) detection of proteins. In search of more effective methods for enhancing MS proteome coverage, we developed a robust method for intact protein separation (IPS), an alternative first-dimension separation technique, and explored additional benefits that it offers. Comparing IPS to the traditional PS method, we found that both enhance detection of unique protein IDs to a similar magnitude, though in diverse ways. IPS was especially effective in serum, which has a small number of extremely high abundance proteins. PS was more effective in tissues with fewer dominating high-abundance proteins and was more effective in enhancing detection of post-translational modifications (PTMs). Combining the IPS and PS methods together (IPS+PS) was especially beneficial, enhancing proteome detection more than either method could independently. The comparison of IPS+PS versus six PS fractionation pools increased total number of proteins IDs by nearly double, while also significantly increasing number of unique peptides detected per protein, percent peptide sequence coverage of each protein, and detection of PTMs. This IPS+PS combined method requires fewer LC-MS/MS runs than current PS methods would need to obtain similar improvements in proteome detection, and it is robust, time- and cost-effective, and generally applicable to various tissue and sample types.
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.