ArticleACS omega2025
In-Depth Comparison of Reagent-Based Digestion Methods and Two Commercially Available Kits for Bottom-Up Proteomics.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.