ArticleACS omega2025
Refinement of Protein Extraction Protocols for Human Peripheral Nerve Tissue.
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.
- Shiga toxin delivery in extracellular vesicles induces high mortality and severe kidney injury in a Gb3-dependent manner.PLoS pathogens · 2026Article
- Rapid Biochemical Analysis of Postmortem Serum and Myocardial Homogenates-An Exploratory Study.Biomolecules · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our aim was to establish an effective method for protein extraction from freshly frozen human peripheral nerves, determine the minimum amount required for consistent protein extraction outcomes, and assess which method produced the highest number of protein identities. Five extraction methods were compared using 8 M urea and Ripa buffer using either the Bullet Blender or Bioruptor. Out of the total 2619 identified proteins, protein extraction using the Ripa buffer combined with either Bioruptor or Bullet Blender resulted in the identification of 1582 (60%) and 1615 (62%) proteins, respectively. In contrast, using 8 M urea and Bioruptor for protein extraction resulted in 1022 proteins (39%), whereas employing Bullet Blender yielded 1446 proteins (55%). Sample amounts, ranging from 0.6 to 10 mg, were prepared with consistent protein extraction outcome obtained for samples ≥1.2 mg. Combining Ripa and 8 M urea with Bullet Blender increased protein identification to 2126 (81%). Proteins were classified by their cell components, molecular functions, and biological processes. Furthermore, a subclassification of proteins involved in the extracellular matrix (ECM) was introduced. We recommend the use of Ripa buffer, in combination with 8 M urea and Bullet Blender for extracting proteins from fresh-frozen human nerves weighing ≥1.2 mg.
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.