Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

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

Proteomic Analysis of Human Serum by Two-Dimensional Differential Gel Electrophoresis after Depletion of High-Abundant Proteins

Chromy, Brett A., Gonzales, Arlene D., Perkins, Julie, Choi, Megan W., Corzett, Michele H., Chang, Brian C., Corzett, Christopher H., McCutchen-Maloney, Sandra L.·2004·Journal of Proteome Research

Abstract

Two-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis (2-D DIGE) was used to analyze human serum following the removal of albumin and five other high-abundant serum proteins. After protein removal, serum was analyzed by SDS-PAGE as a preliminary screen, and significant differences between four high-abundant protein removal methods were observed. Antibody-based albumin removal and high-abundant protein removal methods were found to be efficient and specific. To further characterize serum after protein removal, 2-D DIGE was employed, enabling multiplexed analysis of serum through the use of three fluorescent protein dyes. Comparison between crude serum and serum after removal of high-abundant proteins clearly illustrates an increase in the number of lower abundant protein spots observed. Approximately 850 protein spots were detected in crude serum whereas over 1500 protein spots were exposed following removal of six high-abundant proteins, representing a 76% increase in protein spot detection. Several proteins that showed a 2-fold increase in intensity after depletion of high-abundant proteins, as well as proteins that were depleted during abundant protein removal methods, were further characterized by mass spectrometry. This series of experiments demonstrates that high-abundant protein removal, combined with 2-D DIGE, is a practical approach for enriching and characterizing lower abundant proteins in human serum. Consequently, this methodology offers advances in proteomic characterization, and therefore, in the identification of biomarkers from human serum.

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 · 10.1021/pr049921p

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

Metadata

Authors
Chromy, B. A., Gonzales, A. D., Perkins, J., Choi, M. W., Corzett, M. H., Chang, B. C., Corzett, C. H., & McCutchen-Maloney, S. L.
Venue
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2004-08-27
Volume
3
Issue
6
Pages
1120-1127
ISSN
  • 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-3907
OpenAlex
W2025524111
Cited by
190
References
1
FWCI
8.90
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

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.