ArticleNature communications2025
Standard operating procedure combined with comprehensive quality control system for multiple LC-MS platforms urinary proteomics.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Storage-dependent changes in the soluble urinary proteome: a pre-analytical stability study in inflammatory clinical urine samples.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Article
- Urinary Proteomics Enables Noninvasive and Longitudinal Monitoring of Tumor Burden Dynamics and Early Recurrence in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2026Article
- Biomarkers of Cardiac Metabolic Flexibility in Health, HFrEF and HFpEF.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Differential analysis of urinary stable downregulated proteins in male patients after colorectal cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Identification of serum peptide biomarkers for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis and staging via MALDI-TOF MS and LC-MS/MS.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- From proteomics to colloidal gold tests for urinary thrombomodulin: a prospective cohort study on accurate sepsis screening.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Organoid-Based Disease Modeling: A New Frontier in Precision Medicine.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Urinary proteomics is emerging as a potent tool for detecting sensitive and non-invasive biomarkers. At present, the comparability of urinary proteomics data across diverse liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) platforms remains an area that requires investigation. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of urinary proteome across multiple LC-MS platforms. To systematically analyze and assess the quality of large-scale urinary proteomics data, we develop a comprehensive quality control (QC) system named MSCohort, which extracted 81 metrics for individual experiment and the whole cohort quality evaluation. Additionally, we present a standard operating procedure (SOP) for high-throughput urinary proteome analysis based on MSCohort QC system. Our study involves 20 LC-MS platforms and reveals that, when combined with a comprehensive QC system and a unified SOP, the data generated by data-independent acquisition (DIA) workflow in urine QC samples exhibit high robustness, sensitivity, and reproducibility across multiple LC-MS platforms. Furthermore, we apply this SOP to hybrid benchmarking samples and clinical colorectal cancer (CRC) urinary proteome including 527 experiments. Across three different LC-MS platforms, the analyses report high quantitative reproducibility and consistent disease patterns. This work lays the groundwork for large-scale clinical urinary proteomics studies spanning multiple platforms, paving the way for precision medicine research.
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.