ArticleJournal of proteome research2025
Alternative Ion-Pairing Modifiers Should Be Investigated in Low-Input and Single-Cell Proteomics.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 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.
- Propionic Acid Outperforms Formic and Acetic Acid in MS Sensitivity for High-Flow Reversed-Phase LC-MS Bottom-Up Proteomics.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
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
Abstract
A recent study demonstrated a substantial increase in the peptide signal and corresponding proteome coverage when employing 0.5% acetic acid (AA) as the ion pairing modifier in place of the 0.1% formic acid traditionally used in shotgun proteomics. Given the strictly limited material and counterintuitive observations by others in the emerging field of single-cell proteomics, we chose to investigate this alternative modifier in the analysis of subnanogram proteome dilutions. When digest standards as low as 20 pg total load on the column were evaluated, AA led to increased proteome coverage at every peptide load assessed. Relative improvements were more apparent at lower concentrations, with a 20 pg peptide digest demonstrating a striking 1.8-fold increase to over 2000 protein groups identified in a 30 min analysis. Furthermore, we find that this increase in signal can be leveraged to reduce ramp times, leading to 1.7× more scans across each peak and improvements in quantification, as measured by %CVs. These results can be reproduced on multiple trapped ion mobility instruments. When evaluating single cancer cells, approximately 13% more peptide groups were identified on average when employing AA in the place of FA. These results suggest that ion pairing modifiers and other additives warrant re-evaluation in the context of low-input and single-cell proteomics. All vendor raw and processed data are available through ProteomeXchange as PXD046002 and PXD051590.
Indexed as
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.