The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of saturation labelling two‐dimensional difference gel electrophoresis fluorescent dyes
Abstract
Two‐dimensional difference gel electrophoresis (2‐D DIGE) enables an increased confidence in detection of protein differences. However, due to the nature of the minimal labelling where only approximately 5% of a given protein is labelled, spots cannot be directly excised for mass spectrometry (MS) analysis and detection sensitivity could be further enhanced. Amersham Biosciences have developed a second set of CyDye™ DIGE Cy™3 and Cy5 dyes, which aim to overcome these limitations through saturation‐labelling of cysteine residues. The dyes were evaluated in relation to their sensitivity and dynamic range, their useability as multiplexing reagents and the possibility of direct spot picking from saturation‐labelled gels for MS analysis. The saturation‐labelling dyes were superior in sensitivity to their minimal‐labelling counterparts, silver stain and Sypro Ruby, however, the resulting 2‐D spot pattern was significantly altered from that of unlabelled or minimal‐labelled protein. The dyes were found to be useful as multiplexing reagents although preferential labelling of proteins with one dye over another was observed but was controlled for through experimental design. Protein identities were successfully obtained from material directly excised from saturation‐labelled gels eliminating the need for post‐stained preparative gels.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Clinical proteomics: A need to define the field and to begin to set adequate standards
Mischak, H., Apweiler, R., Banks, R. E., Conaway, M., Coon, J., Dominiczak, A., Ehrich, J. H. H., Fliser, D., Girolami, M., Hermjakob, H., et al. (2007) · PROTEOMICS – Clinical Applications · doi:10.1002/prca.200600771 · Cited by 307
Advances in Urinary Proteome Analysis and Biomarker Discovery
Fliser, D., Novak, J., Thongboonkerd, V., Argile[Combining Acute Accent]s, A. G. A., Jankowski, V., Girolami, M. A., Jankowski, J., & Mischak, H. (2007) · Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.1681/asn.2006090956 · Cited by 286
Hansen, R. E., & Winther, J. R. (2009) · Analytical Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.ab.2009.07.051 · Cited by 270
Chouchani, E. T., Hurd, T. R., Nadtochiy, S. M., Brookes, P. S., Fearnley, I. M., Lilley, K. S., Smith, R. A. J., & Murphy, M. P. (2010) · Biochemical Journal · doi:10.1042/bj20100633 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Shaw, J., Rowlinson, R., Nickson, J., Stone, T., Sweet, A., Williams, K., & Tonge, R.
- Venue
- PROTEOMICS
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1181-1195
- ISSN
- 1615-9853 (ISSN-L)
- 1615-9861
- OpenAlex
- W2020796595
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of saturation labelling two‐dimensional difference gel electrophoresis fluorescent dyes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pmic.200300439
- The paper
- Shaw, J., Rowlinson, R., Nickson, J., Stone, T., Sweet, A., Williams, K., & Tonge, R. (2003). Evaluation of saturation labelling two‐dimensional difference gel electrophoresis fluorescent dyes. PROTEOMICS. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200300439
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.