ArticleProteomics2026
Comparison of In-Gel and SP3 Based Sample Preparation Protocols for LC-MS/MS Based Proteomics.
Article in Proteomics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sensitivity, robustness, and reproducibility of sample preparation are main determinants of data quality in bottom-up mass spectrometry-based proteomics. To this end, in-gel protein clean-up and digestion has been used for decades and is characterized by its robustness and compatibility with harsh lysis conditions. Single-pot solid-phase-enhanced sample preparation (SP3) has gained substantial popularity recently and has been widely adapted as a standard workflow often replacing in-gel digestion-based workflows. Noteworthy, until today no direct comparison between the two workflows has been conducted. Here, we performed a systematic comparison of in-gel and SP3 based sample preparation workflows assessing sensitivity, robustness, reproducibility, and fractionation possibilities on human cellular lysates and blood plasma. Both methods performed similarly regarding number of identified proteins, however, showed specific biases. SP3 outperformed the in-gel workflow regarding higher sensitivity when handling limited sample amounts, especially below 5 µg of input material. In contrast, in-gel sample preparation was superior in the identification of low molecular weight proteins. In conclusion, while SP3 is indeed the state-of-the-art proteomics sample preparation method, in-gel digestion can deliver competitive and complementary results and still has advantages in some applications, such as measurement of small proteins or when there is a need for protein-level separation, e. g. in plasma samples.
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.