ArticleNational science review2024
Amplifiable protein identification via residue-resolved barcoding and composition code counting.
Article in National science review, 2024. 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.
- Bacterial Proteomics and Antibiotic Resistance Identification: Is Single-Cell Analysis a Worthwhile Pursuit?Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advancements in proteogenomics for preclinical targeted cancer therapy research.Biophysics reports · 2025Article
- Spatiotemporal metabolomic approaches to the cancer-immunity panorama: a methodological perspective.Molecular cancer · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasensitive protein identification is of paramount importance in basic research and clinical diagnostics but remains extremely challenging. A key bottleneck in preventing single-molecule protein sequencing is that, unlike the revolutionary nucleic acid sequencing methods that rely on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify DNA and RNA molecules, protein molecules cannot be directly amplified. Decoding the proteins via amplification of certain fingerprints rather than the intact protein sequence thus represents an appealing alternative choice to address this formidable challenge. Herein, we report a proof-of-concept method that relies on residue-resolved DNA barcoding and composition code counting for amplifiable protein fingerprinting (AmproCode). In AmproCode, selective types of residues on peptides or proteins are chemically labeled with a DNA barcode, which can be amplified and quantified via quantitative PCR. The operation generates a relative ratio as the residue-resolved 'composition code' for each target protein that can be utilized as the fingerprint to determine its identity from the proteome database. We developed a database searching algorithm and applied it to assess the coverage of the whole proteome and secretome via computational simulations, proving the theoretical feasibility of AmproCode. We then designed the residue-specific DNA barcoding and amplification workflow, and identified different synthetic model peptides found in the secretome at as low as the fmol/L level for demonstration. These results build the foundation for an unprecedented amplifiable protein fingerprinting method. We believe that, in the future, AmproCode could ultimately realize single-molecule amplifiable identification of trace complex samples without further purification, and it may open a new avenue in the development of next-generation protein sequencing techniques.
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.