Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 493

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

Multiple reaction monitoring for robust quantitative proteomic analysis of cellular signaling networks

Open access
Wolf-Yadlin, Alejandro, Hautaniemi, Sampsa, Lauffenburger, Douglas A., White, Forest M.·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Although recent developments in MS have enabled the identification and quantification of hundreds of phosphorylation sites from a given biological sample, phosphoproteome analysis by MS has been plagued by inconsistent reproducibility arising from automated selection of precursor ions for fragmentation, identification, and quantification. To address this challenge, we have developed a new MS-based strategy, based on multiple reaction monitoring of stable isotope-labeled peptides, that enables highly reproducible quantification of hundreds of nodes (phosphorylation sites) within a signaling network and across multiple conditions simultaneously. We have applied this strategy to quantify temporal phosphorylation profiles of 222 tyrosine phosphorylated peptides across seven time points following EGF treatment, including 31 tyrosine phosphorylation sites not previously known to be regulated by EGF stimulation. With this approach, 88% of the signaling nodes were reproducibly quantified in four analyses, as compared with only 34% by typical information-dependent analysis. As a result of the improved reproducibility, full temporal phosphorylation profiles were generated for an additional 104 signaling nodes with the multiple reaction monitoring strategy, an 88% increase in our coverage of the signaling network. This method is broadly applicable to multiple signaling networks and to a variety of samples, including quantitative analysis of signaling networks in clinical samples. Using this approach, it should now be possible to routinely monitor the phosphorylation status of hundreds of nodes across multiple biological conditions.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0608638104

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

See all 493

Metadata

Authors
Wolf-Yadlin, A., Hautaniemi, S., Lauffenburger, D. A., & White, F. M.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-04-03
Volume
104
Issue
14
Pages
5860-5865
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1965807926
Cited by
493
References
1
FWCI
25.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Multiple reaction monitoring for robust quantitative proteomic analysis of cellular signaling networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0608638104
The paper
Wolf-Yadlin, A., Hautaniemi, S., Lauffenburger, D. A., & White, F. M. (2007). Multiple reaction monitoring for robust quantitative proteomic analysis of cellular signaling networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608638104

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.