ArticleACS omega2025
Overlap of Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded and Fresh-Frozen Matched Tissues for Proteomics and Phosphoproteomics.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proteome profiles of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma tie mitochondrial complex I to immunotherapy.EMBO molecular medicine · 2026Article
- Proteomic atlas of human peritoneal tissue.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Sample Preparation for Multi-Omics Analysis: Considerations and Guidance for Identifying the Ideal Workflow.Proteomics · 2025Review
- Quantitative proteomics of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cardiac specimens uncovers protein signatures of specialized regions and patient groups.Nature cardiovascular research · 2025Article
- Article
- Proteomics in IDH-mutated diffuse lower-grade glioma: a scoping review.Neuro-oncology advancesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) studies have compared formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues with matched fresh-frozen (FF) tissues to examine the effect of preservation techniques on the proteome; however, few studies have included the phosphoproteome. A high degree of overlap and correlation between the two preservation techniques would demonstrate the importance of FFPE tissues as a valuable biomedical resource. Our aim was to quantitatively compare the proteome and phosphoproteome of matched FFPE and FF tissues using data-independent acquisition LC-MS. Four organs from three rats were cut in half to produce matched FFPE and FF tissue pairs. Excellent overlaps of 85-97% for the proteome and 82-98% for the phosphoproteome were observed, depending on the organ type, between the two preservation techniques. Most of the unique identifications were found in FF with less than 0.3% being unique to FFPE tissues. Strong agreement between FFPE and FF matched tissue pairs was observed with Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.93-0.97 and 0.79-0.87 for the proteome and phosphoproteome, respectively. Digestion efficiency was slightly higher in FFPE (92-94%) than in FF tissues (86-89%), and a search of a data subset for formaldehyde induced chemical modifications revealed that only 0.05% of precursors were unique to FFPE tissues. This suggests that with quality sample preparation methods it is not necessary to include formaldehyde induced chemical modifications when analyzing FFPE tissues. We attribute the lower number of identifications in FFPE tissues to inaccurate peptide quantitation, which resulted in a lower MS peptide load and tryptic peptide enrichment load. Our results demonstrate that both proteomic and phosphoproteomic analyses of FFPE and FF tissues are highly comparable and highlight the suitability of FFPE tissues for both proteomic and phosphoproteomic analysis.
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.