The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Quantification in Proteomics through Stable Isotope Coding: A Review
Abstract
This review focuses on techniques for quantification and identification in proteomics by stable isotope coding. Methods are examined for analyzing expression, post-translational modifications, protein:protein interactions, single amino acid polymorphism, and absolute quantification. The bulk of the quantification literature in proteomics focuses on expression analysis, where a wide variety of methods targeting different features of proteins are described. Methods for the analysis of post-translational modification (PTM) focus primarily on phosphorylation and glycosylation, where quantification is achieved in two ways, either by substitution or tagging of the PTM with an isotopically coded derivatizing agent in a single process or by coding and selecting PTM modified peptides in separate operations. Absolute quantification has been achieved by age-old internal standard methods, in which an isotopically labeled isoform of an analyte is synthesized and added to a mixture at a known concentration. One of the surprises is that isotope coding can be a valuable aid in the examination of intermolecular association of proteins through stimulus:response studies. Preliminary efforts to recognize single amino acid polymorphism are also described. The review ends with the conclusion that (1) isotope ratio analysis of protein concentration between samples does not necessarily relate directly to protein expression and rate of PTM and (2) that multiple new methods must be developed and applied simultaneously to make existing stable isotope quantification methods more meaningful. Although stable isotope coding is a powerful, wonderful new technique, multiple analytical issues must be solved for the technique to reach its full potential as a tool to study biological systems.
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
Mass spectrometry–based proteomics turns quantitative
Ong, S.-E., & Mann, M. (2005) · Nature Chemical Biology · doi:10.1038/nchembio736 · Cited by 1,572
Protein Analysis by Shotgun/Bottom-up Proteomics
Zhang, Y., Fonslow, B. R., Shan, B., Baek, M.-C., & Yates, J. R. (2013) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr3003533 · Cited by 1,491
Interpretation of Shotgun Proteomic Data
Nesvizhskii, A. I., & Aebersold, R. (2005) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.r500012-mcp200 · Cited by 1,025
Functional and quantitative proteomics using SILAC
Mann, M. (2006) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/nrm2067 · Cited by 931
Global and Site-Specific Quantitative Phosphoproteomics: Principles and Applications
Macek, B., Mann, M., & Olsen, J. V. (2009) · Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology · doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.011008.145606 · Cited by 386
Metadata
- Authors
- Julka, S., & Regnier, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Proteome Research
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2004-01-13
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 350-363
- ISSN
- 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
- 1535-3907
- OpenAlex
- W2013902810
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.69
- 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: Quantification in Proteomics through Stable Isotope Coding: A Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/pr0340734
- The paper
- Julka, S., & Regnier, F. (2004). Quantification in Proteomics through Stable Isotope Coding: A Review. Journal of Proteome Research. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr0340734
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.