ArticleProteomes2024
Protein Extraction Methods Suitable for Muscle Tissue Proteomic Analysis.
Article in Proteomes, 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.
- Evaluating effects of tissue type, preservation method, and decomposition on DNA quality to support genetic sampling in stranded small cetaceans.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Molecular Insights into Central Core Disease: Proteomic Signatures and Potential Therapeutic Biomarkers in RYR1 I4895T Mice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Integrated Transcriptomic and Proteomic Analysis Reveals Differential Gene and Protein Expression and Signaling Pathways During a 20 Km Endurance Exercise and Recovery in Mongolian Horses.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Muscle tissue is one of the most dynamic and plastic tissues of the mammalian body and covers different roles, such as force generation and metabolic control. Muscular proteomics provides an important opportunity to reveal the molecular mechanisms behind muscle pathophysiology. To ensure successful proteomic analysis, it is necessary to have an efficient and reproducible protein extraction method. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two different extraction protocols of muscle samples for two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. In particular, mouse muscle proteins were extracted by an SDS-based buffer (Method A) and by a UREA/CHAPS/DTE/TRIS solution (Method B). The efficacies of the methods were assessed by performing an image analysis of the 2DE gels and by statistical and multivariate analyses. The 2DE gels in both preparations showed good resolution and good spot overlapping. Methods A and B produced 2DE gels with different means of total spots, higher for B. Image analysis showed different patterns of protein abundance between the protocols. The results showed that the two methods extract and solubilize proteins with different chemical-physical characteristics and different cellular localizations. These results attest the efficacy and reproducibility of both protein extraction methods, which can be parallelly applied for comprehensive proteomic profiling of muscle tissue.
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.