The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CE‐MS analysis of the human urinary proteome for biomarker discovery and disease diagnostics
Open accessAbstract
Owing to its availability, ease of collection, and correlation with pathophysiology of diseases, urine is an attractive source for clinical proteomics. However, many proteomic studies have had only limited clinical impact, due to factors such as modest numbers of subjects, absence of disease controls, small numbers of defined biomarkers, and diversity of analytical platforms. Therefore, it is difficult to merge biomarkers from different studies into a broadly applicable human urinary proteome database. Ideally, the methodology for defining the biomarkers should combine a reasonable analysis time with high resolution, thereby enabling the profiling of adequate samples and recognition of sufficient features to yield robust diagnostic panels. CE‐MS, which was used to analyze urine samples from healthy subjects and patients with various diseases, is a suitable approach for this task. The database of these datasets compiled from the urinary peptides enables the diagnosis, classification, and monitoring of a wide range of diseases. CE‐MS exhibits excellent performance for biomarker discovery and allows subsequent biomarker sequencing independent of the separation platform. This approach may elucidate the pathogenesis of many diseases, and better define especially renal and urological disorders at the molecular level.
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
Identifying differentially expressed genes using false discovery rate controlling procedures
Reiner, A., Yekutieli, D., & Benjamini, Y. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btf877 · Cited by 1,765
Thongboonkerd, V., Mcleish, K. R., Arthur, J. M., & Klein, J. B. (2002) · Kidney International · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1755.2002.kid565.x · Cited by 359
Cited by
Quantitative Urinary Proteome Analysis for Biomarker Evaluation in Chronic Kidney Disease
Jantos-Siwy, J., Schiffer, E., Brand, K., Schumann, G., Rossing, K., Delles, C., Mischak, H., & Metzger, J. (2009) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr800401m · Cited by 259
Self-citationMischak, H., Coon, J. J., Novak, J., Weissinger, E. M., Schanstra, J. P., & Dominiczak, A. F. (2009) · Mass Spectrometry Reviews · doi:10.1002/mas.20205 · Cited by 193
Self-citationVerrastro, I., Pasha, S., Jensen, K., Pitt, A., & Spickett, C. (2015) · Biomolecules · doi:10.3390/biom5020378 · Cited by 114
CE‐MS‐based proteomics in biomarker discovery and clinical application
Pontillo, C., Filip, S., Borràs, D. M., Mullen, W., Vlahou, A., & Mischak, H. (2015) · PROTEOMICS – Clinical Applications · doi:10.1002/prca.201400115 · Cited by 77
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Coon, J. J., Zürbig, P., Dakna, M., Dominiczak, A. F., Decramer, S., Fliser, D., Frommberger, M., Golovko, I., Good, D. M., Herget‐Rosenthal, S., Jankowski, J., Julian, B. A., Kellmann, M., Kolch, W., Massy, Z., Novak, J., Rossing, K., Schanstra, J. P., Schiffer, E., Theodorescu, D., Vanholder, R., Weissinger, E. M., Mischak, H., & Schmitt‐Kopplin, P.
- Venue
- PROTEOMICS – Clinical Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 7-8
- Pages
- 964-973
- ISSN
- 1862-8346 (ISSN-L)
- 1862-8354
- OpenAlex
- W2035540717
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.05
- 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
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.