ArticleScientific reports2023
Immobilized enzyme microreactors for analysis of tryptic peptides in β-casein and β-lactoglobulin.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospects and problems in enzyme immobilization methodology: comprehensive review.Biophysical reviews · 2025Review
- Development of an Automated, Ultra-Rapid Bottom-Up Proteomics Workflow Utilizing Alginate-Based Hydrogels.Analytical chemistry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, our primary objective was to develop an effective analytical method for studying trypsin-digested peptides of two proteins commonly found in cow's milk: β-casein (βCN) and β-lactoglobulin (βLG). To achieve this, we employed two distinct approaches: traditional in-gel protein digestion and protein digestion using immobilized enzyme microreactors (μ-IMER). Both methods utilized ZipTip pipette tips filled with C18 reverse phase media for sample concentration. The μ-IMER was fabricated through a multi-step process that included preconditioning the capillary, modifying its surface, synthesizing a monolithic support, and further surface modification. Its performance was evaluated under HPLC chromatography conditions using a small-molecule trypsin substrate (BAEE). Hydrolysates from both digestion methods were analyzed using MALDI-TOF MS. Our findings indicate that the μ-IMER method demonstrated superior sequence coverage for oxidized molecules in βCN (33 ± 1.5%) and βLG (65 ± 3%) compared to classical in-gel digestion (20 ± 2% for βCN; 49 ± 2% for βLG). The use of ZipTips further improved sequence coverage in both classical in-gel digestion (26 ± 1% for βCN; 60 ± 4% for βLG) and μ-IMER (41 ± 3% for βCN; 80 ± 5% for βLG). Additionally, phosphorylations were identified. For βCN, no phosphorylation was detected using classical digestion, but the use of ZipTips showed a value of 27 ± 4%. With μ-IMER and μ-IMER-ZipTip, the values increased to 30 ± 2% and 33 ± 1%, respectively. For βLG, the use of ZipTip enabled the detection of a higher percentage of modified peptides in both classical (79 ± 2%) and μ-IMER (79 ± 4%) digestions. By providing a comprehensive comparison of traditional in-gel digestion and μ-IMER methods, this study offers valuable insights into the advantages and limitations of each approach, particularly in the context of complex biological samples. The findings set a new benchmark in protein digestion and analysis, highlighting the potential of μ-IMER systems for enhanced sequence coverage and post-translational modification detection.
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.