ArticleProteomes2026
Comparison of the Trapping Efficiency for Tryptic Peptides on Particle-Packed and Micro-Pillar Trap Columns for Proteomics Analyses.
Article in Proteomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow-volume trapping columns are essential for sample enrichment, desalting, and injection profile focusing on nano-LC-MS-based proteomics. They enable higher sample loading, improve chromatographic performance, and protect the analytical column by removing salts and contaminants. Recently, monolithic trap columns with micropillar architecture have emerged as alternatives to conventionally packed traps. This study compares the performance of a packed and a micropillar monolithic trap column for the analysis of tryptic peptides.
methodsA tryptic digest of HeLa cell lysate was analyzed under identical LC-MS conditions using both trap types. Peptides were detected at 214 nm and analyzed by nano-ESI on a Q Exactive Plus Orbitrap. Data were searched against the human UniProt database (February 2023) using FragPipe v20.0, and statistical evaluation of MaxLFQ intensities was performed in Perseus using Welch's
resultsOver 2500 proteins were identified with both setups. The packed trap column yielded more total peptides, particularly those with post-translational modifications and higher hydrophilicity, whereas the monolithic column favored peptides of intermediate hydrophobicity. Chromatographic profiles confirmed a slight reduction in the trapping efficiency of hydrophilic peptides by the monolithic trap.
conclusionsTrap column design significantly influences peptide recovery and proteome coverage.
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.