The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improved recovery of proteome‐informative, protein N‐terminal peptides by combined fractional diagonal chromatography (COFRADIC)
Open accessAbstract
We previously described a proteome‐wide, peptide‐centric procedure for sorting protein N‐terminal peptides and used these peptides as readouts for protease degradome and xenoproteome studies. This procedure is part of a repertoire of gel‐free techniques known as COmbined FRActional DIagonal Chromatography (COFRADIC) and highly enriches for α‐amino‐blocked peptides, including α‐amino‐acetylated protein N‐terminal peptides. Here, we introduce two additional steps that significantly increase the fraction of such proteome‐informative, N‐terminal peptides: strong cation exchange (SCX) segregation of α‐amino‐blocked and α‐amino‐free peptides and an enzymatic step liberating pyroglutamyl peptides for 2,4,6‐trinitrobenzenesulphonic acid (TNBS) modification and thus COFRADIC sorting. The SCX step reduces the complexity of the analyte mixture by enriching N‐terminal peptides and depleting α‐amino‐free internal peptides as well as proline‐starting peptides prior to COFRADIC. The action of pyroglutamyl aminopeptidases prior to the first COFRADIC peptide separation results in greatly diminishing numbers of contaminating pyroglutamyl peptides in peptide maps. We further show that now close to 95% of all COFRADIC‐sorted peptides are α‐amino‐acetylated and, using the same amount of starting material, our novel procedure leads to an increased number of protein identifications.
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
Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags
Gygi, S. P., Rist, B., Gerber, S. A., Turecek, F., Gelb, M. H., & Aebersold, R. (1999) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/13690 · Cited by 4,683
Elias, J. E., & Gygi, S. P. (2007) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth1019 · Cited by 3,925
Cited by
Multiplex peptide stable isotope dimethyl labeling for quantitative proteomics
Boersema, P. J., Raijmakers, R., Lemeer, S., Mohammed, S., & Heck, A. J. R. (2009) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2009.21 · Cited by 1,357
Cauwe, B., & Opdenakker, G. (2010) · Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · doi:10.3109/10409238.2010.501783 · Cited by 299
Selected reaction monitoring applied to proteomics
Gallien, S., Duriez, E., & Domon, B. (2011) · Journal of Mass Spectrometry · doi:10.1002/jms.1895 · Cited by 286
Menschaert, G., Van Criekinge, W., Notelaers, T., Koch, A., Crappé, J., Gevaert, K., & Van Damme, P. (2013) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m113.027540 · Cited by 173
Self-citationZhang, S., Raedschelders, K., Santos, M., & Van Eyk, J. E. (2017) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00482 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Staes, A., Van Damme, P., Helsens, K., Demol, H., Vandekerckhove, J., & Gevaert, K.
- Venue
- PROTEOMICS
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-03-26
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1362-1370
- ISSN
- 1615-9853 (ISSN-L)
- 1615-9861
- OpenAlex
- W1980745149
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Improved recovery of proteome‐informative, protein N‐terminal peptides by combined fractional diagonal chromatography (COFRADIC). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pmic.200700950
- The paper
- Staes, A., Van Damme, P., Helsens, K., Demol, H., Vandekerckhove, J., & Gevaert, K. (2008). Improved recovery of proteome‐informative, protein N‐terminal peptides by combined fractional diagonal chromatography (COFRADIC). PROTEOMICS. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200700950
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.