ArticleAnalytical chemistry2024
Comparative Analysis of Digestion Methods for Bile Proteomics: The Key to Unlocking Biliary Biomarker Potential.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBile's potential to reflect the health of the biliary system has led to increased attention, with proteomic analysis offering deeper understanding of biliary diseases and potential biomarkers. With the emergence of normothermic machine perfusion (NMP), bile can be easily collected and analyzed. However, the composition of bile can make the application of proteomics challenging. This study systematically evaluated various trypsin digestion methods to optimize proteomics of bile from human NMP livers.
methodsBile was collected from 12 human donor livers that were accepted for transplantation after the NMP viability assessment. We performed tryptic digestion using six different methods: in-gel, in-solution, S-Trap, SMART, EasyPep, and filter-aided sample purification, with or without additional precipitation before digestion. Proteins were analyzed using untargeted proteomics. Methods were assessed for total protein IDs, variation, and protein characteristics to determine the most optimal method.
resultsMethods involving precipitation surpassed crude methods in protein identifications (4500 vs 3815) except for in-gel digestion. Filtered data (40%) resulted in 3192 versus 2469 for precipitated and crude methods, respectively. We found minimal differences in mass, cellular components, or hydrophobicity of proteins between methods. Intermethod variability was notably diverse, with in-gel, in-solution, and EasyPep outperforming others. Age-related biological comparisons revealed upregulation of metabolic-related processes in younger donors and immune response and cell cycle-related processes in older donors.
conclusionsVariability between methods emphasizes the importance of cross-validation across multiple analytical approaches to ensure robust analysis. We recommend the in-gel crude method for its simplicity and efficiency, avoiding additional precipitation steps. Sample processing speed, cost, cleanliness, and reproducibility should be considered when a digestion method is selected for bile proteomics.
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.