The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative Study of Three Proteomic Quantitative Methods, DIGE, cICAT, and iTRAQ, Using 2D Gel- or LC−MALDI TOF/TOF
Abstract
A comparative study on the three quantitative methods frequently used in proteomics, 2D DIGE (difference gel electrophoresis), cICAT (cleavable isotope-coded affinity tags) and iTRAQ (isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification), was carried out. DIGE and cICAT are familiar techniques used in gel- and LC-based quantitative proteomics, respectively. iTRAQ is a new LC-based technique which is gradually gaining in popularity. A systematic comparison among these quantitative methods has not been reported. In this study, we conducted well-designed comparisons using a six-protein mixture, a reconstituted protein mixture (BSA spiked into human plasma devoid of six abundant proteins), and complex HCT-116 cell lysates as the samples. All three techniques yielded quantitative results with reasonable accuracy when the six-protein or the reconstituted protein mixture was used. In DIGE, accurate quantification was sometimes compromised due to comigration or partial comigration of proteins. The iTRAQ method is more susceptible to errors in precursor ion isolation, which could be manifested with increasing sample complexity. The quantification sensitivity of each method was estimated by the number of peptides detected for each protein. In this regard, the global-tagging iTRAQ technique was more sensitive than the cysteine-specific cICAT method, which in turn was as sensitive as, if not more sensitive than, the DIGE technique. Protein profiling on HCT-116 and HCT-116 p53 -/- cell lysates displayed limited overlapping among proteins identified by the three methods, suggesting the complementary nature of these methods.
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
Ross, P. L., Huang, Y. N., Marchese, J. N., Williamson, B., Parker, K., Hattan, S., Khainovski, N., Pillai, S., Dey, S., Daniels, S., et al. (2004) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m400129-mcp200 · Cited by 4,401
Cited by
Cerebrospinal fluid chitinase 3-like 1 levels are associated with conversion to multiple sclerosis
Comabella, M., Fernández, M., Martin, R., Rivera-Vallvé, S., Borrás, E., Chiva, C., Julià, E., Rovira, A., Cantó, E., Alvarez-Cermeño, J. C., et al. (2010) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awq035 · Cited by 300
Abiotic stress responses in plant roots: a proteomics perspective
Ghosh, D., & Xu, J. (2014) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00006 · Cited by 294
Stable isotope labelling methods in mass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics
Chahrour, O., Cobice, D., & Malone, J. (2015) · Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2015.04.013 · Cited by 267
Difference gel electrophoresis
Timms, J. F., & Cramer, R. (2008) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.200800298 · Cited by 267
Shi, Z., Long, W., Zhao, C., Guo, X., Shen, R., & Ding, H. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064351 · Cited by 118
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, W. W., Wang, G., Baek, S. J., & Shen, R.-F.
- Venue
- Journal of Proteome Research
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2006-02-07
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 651-658
- ISSN
- 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
- 1535-3907
- OpenAlex
- W2048678109
- Cited by
- 576
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.75
- 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.