ArticleClinical proteomics2023
Comparison of in-gel and in-solution proteolysis in the proteome profiling of organ perfusion solutions.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Proteomic Analysis of Lipoprotein(a): Method-Dependent Profiles and Disease Pathways.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy of chitinases from mangrove wetland derivedFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Does the cartilage proteome differ between osteoarthritic knees with varus and valgus deformities? Insights from proteomic analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Digestion Methods for Bile Proteomics: The Key to Unlocking Biliary Biomarker Potential.Analytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Chloroform/Methanol Protein Extraction and In-solution Trypsin Digestion Protocol for Bottom-up Proteomics Analysis.Bio-protocol · 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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe organ perfusion solution (perfusate), collected at clinically and temporally significant stages of the organ preservation and transplantation process, provides a valuable insight into the biological status of an organ over time and prior to reperfusion (transplantation) in the recipient. The objective of this study was to assess two bottom-up proteomics workflows for the extraction of tryptic peptides from the perfusate. EXPERIMENTAL
designTwo different kinds of perfusate samples from kidney and liver trials were profiled using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The preparation of clean peptide mixtures for downstream analysis was performed considering different aspects of sample preparation; protein estimation, enrichment, in-gel and urea-based in-solution digestion.
resultsIn-solution digestion of perfusate allowed identification of the highest number of peptides and proteins with greater sequence coverage and higher confidence data in kidney and liver perfusate. Key pathways identified by gene ontology analysis included complement, coagulation and antioxidant pathways, and a number of biomarkers previously linked to ischemia-reperfusion injury were also observed in perfusate.
conclusionsThis study showed that in-solution digestion is a more efficient method for LC-MS/MS analysis of kidney and liver organ perfusion solutions. This method is also quicker and easier than in-gel digestion, allowing for greater sample throughput, with fewer opportunities for experimental error or peptide loss.
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.