Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 545

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

HUPO Plasma Proteome Project specimen collection and handling: Towards the standardization of parameters for plasma proteome samples

Rai, Alex J., Gelfand, Craig A., Haywood, Bruce C., Warunek, David J., Yi, Jizu, Schuchard, Mark D., Mehigh, Richard J., Cockrill, Steven L., Scott, Graham B. I., Tammen, Harald, Schulz‐Knappe, Peter, Speicher, David W., Vitzthum, Frank, Haab, Brian B., Siest, Gerard, Chan, Daniel W.·2005·PROTEOMICS

Abstract

There is a substantial list of pre‐analytical variables that can alter the analysis of blood‐derived samples. We have undertaken studies on some of these issues including choice of sample type, stability during storage, use of protease inhibitors, and clinical standardization. As there is a wide range of sample variables and a broad spectrum of analytical techniques in the HUPO PPP effort, it is not possible to define a single list of pre‐analytical standards for samples or their processing. We present here a compendium of observations, drawing on actual results and sound clinical theories and practices. Based on our data, we find that (1) platelet‐depleted plasma is preferable to serum for certain peptidomic studies; (2) samples should be aliquoted and stored preferably in liquid nitrogen; (3) the addition of protease inhibitors is recommended, but should be incorporated early and used judiciously, as some form non specific protein adducts and others interfere with peptide studies. Further, (4) the diligent tracking of pre‐analytical variables and (5) the use of reference materials for quality control and quality assurance, are recommended. These findings help provide guidance on sample handling issues, with the overall suggestion being to be conscious of all possible pre‐analytical variables as a prerequisite of any proteomic study.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pmic.200401245

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 545

Metadata

Authors
Rai, A. J., Gelfand, C. A., Haywood, B. C., Warunek, D. J., Yi, J., Schuchard, M. D., Mehigh, R. J., Cockrill, S. L., Scott, G. B. I., Tammen, H., Schulz‐Knappe, P., Speicher, D. W., Vitzthum, F., Haab, B. B., Siest, G., & Chan, D. W.
Venue
PROTEOMICS
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-08
Volume
5
Issue
13
Pages
3262-3277
ISSN
  • 1615-9853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1615-9861
OpenAlex
W1971654402
Cited by
545
References
1
FWCI
15.61
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: HUPO Plasma Proteome Project specimen collection and handling: Towards the standardization of parameters for plasma proteome samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pmic.200401245
The paper
Rai, A. J., Gelfand, C. A., Haywood, B. C., Warunek, D. J., Yi, J., Schuchard, M. D., Mehigh, R. J., Cockrill, S. L., Scott, G. B. I., Tammen, H., Schulz‐Knappe, P., Speicher, D. W., Vitzthum, F., Haab, B. B., Siest, G., & Chan, D. W. (2005). HUPO Plasma Proteome Project specimen collection and handling: Towards the standardization of parameters for plasma proteome samples. PROTEOMICS. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200401245

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.