ArticleACS omega2025
Microflow LC-MS Bottom-Up Proteomics Using 1.5 mm Internal Diameter Columns.
Article in ACS omega, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Propionic Acid Outperforms Formic and Acetic Acid in MS Sensitivity for High-Flow Reversed-Phase LC-MS Bottom-Up Proteomics.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- High-Performance Proteomics Using Nano-, Capillary-, and Microflow Chromatographic Separations.Journal of proteome research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbore columns with a 1.0 mm inner diameter (i.d.) have gained popularity in microflow liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) workflows for exploratory proteomics applications due to their high throughput, robustness, and reproducibility. However, obtaining highly efficient separation using these columns remains unachievable, primarily due to significant radial flow heterogeneity caused by uneven particle packing density across the column cross-section. In this study, we evaluated the integration of a 1.5 mm i.d. column, which offers greater packing uniformity and reduced radial flow dispersion, into a microflow LC-MS setup for bottom-up proteomics analysis. The performance of the 1.5 mm i.d. column was compared with that of the 1.0 mm i.d. column using protein samples of varying complexity. The results demonstrate that 1.5 mm i.d. columns provide superior chromatographic separation and better compatibility with conventional-flow LC systems, yielding higher reproducibility and comparable protein and peptide identifications to the 1.0 mm i.d. columns at higher sample amounts. These findings suggest that 1.5 mm i.d. columns could be a suitable alternative to 1.0 mm i.d. columns for microflow LC-MS/MS proteomic analysis, particularly in laboratories with only conventional-flow LC systems.
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.