Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multiple Reaction Monitoring of mTRAQ-Labeled Peptides Enables Absolute Quantification of Endogenous Levels of a Potential Cancer Marker in Cancerous and Normal Endometrial Tissues

DeSouza, Leroi V., Taylor, Adrian M., Li, Wei, Minkoff, Marjorie S., Romaschin, Alexander D., Colgan, Terence J., Siu, K. W. Michael·2008·Journal of Proteome Research

Abstract

While iTRAQ analyses have proved invaluable for the discovery of potential cancer markers, two outstanding issues that remained were its ineffectiveness to consistently detect specific proteins of interest in a complex sample and to determine the absolute abundance of those proteins. These have been addressed by availability of the mTRAQ reagents (Applied Biosystems, Inc., Foster City, CA) a nonisobaric variant of iTRAQ. We have applied this newly emerging technique to quantify one of our potential markers for endometrial cancer, viz. pyruvate kinase M1/M2. The mTRAQ methodolgy relies on multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) to target tryptic peptides from the protein of interest, thus, ensuring maximal opportunity for detection, while the nonisobaric tags enable specific quantification of each version of the labeled peptides through unique MRM transitions conferred by the labels. Known amounts of synthetic peptides tagged with one of the two available mTRAQ labels, when used as quantification standards in a mixture with the oppositely labeled tryptically digested sample, permit determination of the absolute amounts of the corresponding protein in the sample. The ability to label the sample and reference peptides with either one of the two possible combinations is an inherent advantage of this method, as it provides a means for verification of the reported ratios. In this study, we determined that the amount of pyruvate kinase present in the homogenate from a biopsied EmCa tissue sample was 85 nmol/g of total proteins, while the equivalent concentration in the nonmalignant controls was 21-26 nmol/g of total proteins. This approximately 4-fold higher amount of pyruvate kinase in the cancer sample was further confirmed not only by a direct comparison between the cancer sample and one of the nonmalignant controls, but also independently by an enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA). Additionally, the 4-fold higher level of pyruvate kinase amount in the cancer homogenate reported in this study is considerably higher than the 2-fold higher ratio reported across 20 cancer samples in the discovery phase with the iTRAQ technique, suggesting that there exists a possibility that the dynamic range of ratios determined by the iTRAQ technique may have been compressed.

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/pr800312m

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
DeSouza, L. V., Taylor, A. M., Li, W., Minkoff, M. S., Romaschin, A. D., Colgan, T. J., & Siu, K. W. M.
Venue
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2008-07-17
Volume
7
Issue
8
Pages
3525-3534
ISSN
  • 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-3907
OpenAlex
W2115701133
Cited by
172
References
5
FWCI
8.97
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.