The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Differences among techniques for high‐abundant protein depletion
Abstract
The need to identify protein or peptide biomarkers via readily available biological samples like serum, plasma, or cerebrospinal fluid is often hindered by a few particular proteins present at relatively high concentrations. The ability to remove these proteins specifically, reproducibly, and with high selectivity is increasingly important in proteomic studies, and success in this procedure is leading to an ever‐increasing list of lower abundant proteins being identified in these biological fluids. The current work addresses some of the potential problems in depleting proteins in typical biomarker studies, including nonspecific binding during depletion procedures and whether low molecular weight (LMW) species bind to the column in a so‐called “sponge” effect caused by the ability of albumin or other high‐abundant proteins to bind peptides or protein fragments. LC‐MS/MS methods were applied to the comparative analysis of an IgG‐based immunodepletion method and a Cibacron blue (CB)‐dye‐based method, for specificity of removing targeted proteins (binding fraction), as well as for assessing efficiency of target removal. This analysis was extended to examine the effects of repeated use of materials (cycles of binding and elution), in order to assess potential for carryover of one sample to the next. Capacity studies and efficiency of protein removal from the serum samples were followed for the IgG‐based system using both immunochemical assays (ELISA) as well as LC‐MS/MS methods. Additionally, the IgG‐based system was further characterized for the removal of LMW polypeptides by nonspecific binding. We conclude that the IgG‐based system provided effective removal of targeted proteins, with minimal carryover, high longevity, and minimal nonspecific binding. Significant differences are noted between the depletion techniques employed, and this should be considered based on the expectations set during experimental design.
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
Cites
Pieper, R., Su, Q., Gatlin, C. L., Huang, S., Anderson, N. L., & Steiner, S. (2003) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.200390057 · Cited by 356
Cited by
Omenn, G. S., States, D. J., Adamski, M., Blackwell, T. W., Menon, R., Hermjakob, H., Apweiler, R., Haab, B. B., Simpson, R. J., Eddes, J. S., et al. (2005) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.200500358 · Cited by 787
Liu, T., Qian, W.-J., Gritsenko, M. A., Camp, D. G., Monroe, M. E., Moore, R. J., & Smith, R. D. (2005) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr0502065 · Cited by 405
Depletion of Abundant Plasma Proteins and Limitations of Plasma Proteomics
Tu, C., Rudnick, P. A., Martinez, M. Y., Cheek, K. L., Stein, S. E., Slebos, R. J. C., & Liebler, D. C. (2010) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr100646w · Cited by 390
Methods for samples preparation in proteomic research
Bodzon-Kulakowska, A., Bierczynska-Krzysik, A., Dylag, T., Drabik, A., Suder, P., Noga, M., Jarzebinska, J., & Silberring, J. (2007) · Journal of Chromatography B · doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2006.10.040 · Cited by 254
Qian, W.-J., Kaleta, D. T., Petritis, B. O., Jiang, H., Liu, T., Zhang, X., Mottaz, H. M., Varnum, S. M., Camp, D. G., Huang, L., et al. (2008) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m800008-mcp200 · Cited by 208
Metadata
- Authors
- Zolotarjova, N., Martosella, J., Nicol, G., Bailey, J., Boyes, B. E., & Barrett, W. C.
- Venue
- PROTEOMICS
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 3304-3313
- ISSN
- 1615-9853 (ISSN-L)
- 1615-9861
- OpenAlex
- W2024720397
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.16
- 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: Differences among techniques for high‐abundant protein depletion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pmic.200402021
- The paper
- Zolotarjova, N., Martosella, J., Nicol, G., Bailey, J., Boyes, B. E., & Barrett, W. C. (2005). Differences among techniques for high‐abundant protein depletion. PROTEOMICS. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200402021
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.