Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40124045›Full record

ArticleACS omega2025

In-Depth Comparison of Reagent-Based Digestion Methods and Two Commercially Available Kits for Bottom-Up Proteomics.

Travis Uslan, Baiyi Quan, Ting-Yu Wang, Marion Pang, Yanping Qiu, Tsui-Fen Chou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Travis UslanProteome Exploration Laboratory, Beckman Institute, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States.
Baiyi QuanProteome Exploration Laboratory, Beckman Institute, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6313-4274
Ting-Yu WangProteome Exploration Laboratory, Beckman Institute, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9014-6825
Marion PangDivision of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0158-2976
Yanping QiuProteome Exploration Laboratory, Beckman Institute, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2948-2173
Tsui-Fen ChouProteome Exploration Laboratory, Beckman Institute, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2410-2186

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proteomic analysis plays an essential role in biology with several methodologies available for sample preparation and analysis. This study evaluates and compares various cell lysis and protein digestion protocols for bottom-up proteomics using HeLa S3 cells. We assessed two physical disruption methods to homogenize cells-sonication and BeatBox-alongside four digestion protocols. Two of them are lab-reagent strategies: urea-based and sodium deoxycholate (SDC)-based in-solution digestion, and two are commercially available kits: the EasyPep kit from Thermo Fisher Scientific and S-Trap from Protifi. Each method's efficacy was evaluated based on protein recovery, peptide yield, and number of unique proteins identified through LC-MS analysis. Our results indicate that while both sonication and the BeatBox (PreOmics Inc.) methods provided comparable protein recovery and coverage, the choice of digestion method had a much bigger impact on the amount of protein IDs found. SDC digestion yielded the highest protein and peptide counts, while S-Trap exhibited the most consistent peptide recovery. Conversely, EasyPep showed higher variability in peptide recovery, with a ±10% difference in the average peptide number. Each homogenization strategy and digestion method also yielded its own list of unique proteins. These results provide several lists of proteins for biologists to select from based on experimental needs and highlight the importance of choosing appropriate protocols for comprehensive proteomic analyses.

Identifiers

PMID40124045
PMCPMC11923677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.