Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 388

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

2D Differential In-gel Electrophoresis for the Identification of Esophageal Scans Cell Cancer-specific Protein Markers

Open access
Zhou, Ge, Li, Hongmei, DeCamp, Dianne, Chen, She, Shu, Hongjun, Gong, Yi, Flaig, Michael, Gillespie, John W., Hu, Nan, Taylor, Philip R., Emmert-Buck, Michael R., Liotta, Lance A., Petricoin, Emanuel F., Zhao, Yingming·2002·Molecular & Cellular Proteomics

Abstract

The reproducibility of conventional two-dimensional (2D) gel electrophoresis can be improved using differential in-gel electrophoresis (DIGE), a new emerging technology for proteomic analysis. In DIGE, two pools of proteins are labeled with 1-(5-carboxypentyl)-1'-propylindocarbocyanine halide (Cy3) N-hydroxy-succinimidyl ester and 1-(5-carboxypentyl)-1'-methylindodi-carbocyanine halide (Cy5) N-hydroxysuccinimidyl ester fluorescent dyes, respectively. The labeled proteins are mixed and separated in the same 2D gel. 2D DIGE was applied to quantify the differences in protein expression between laser capture microdissection-procured esophageal carcinoma cells and normal epithelial cells and to define cancer-specific and normal-specific protein markers. Analysis of the 2D images from protein lysates of approximately 250,000 cancer cells and normal cells identified 1038 protein spots in cancer cell lysates and 1088 protein spots in normal cell lysates. Of the detected proteins, 58 spots were up-regulated by >3-fold and 107 were down-regulated by >3-fold in cancer cells. In addition to previously identified down-regulated protein annexin I, tumor rejection antigen (gp96) was found up-regulated in esophageal squamous cell cancer. Global quantification of protein expression between laser capture-microdissected patient-matched cancer cells and normal cells using 2D DIGE in combination with mass spectrometry is a powerful tool for the molecular characterization of cancer progression and identification of cancer-specific protein markers.

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 · 10.1074/mcp.m100015-mcp200

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 388

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, G., Li, H., DeCamp, D., Chen, S., Shu, H., Gong, Y., Flaig, M., Gillespie, J. W., Hu, N., Taylor, P. R., Emmert-Buck, M. R., Liotta, L. A., Petricoin, E. F., & Zhao, Y.
Venue
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-02
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
117-123
ISSN
1535-9476 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2139574601
Cited by
388
References
1
FWCI
22.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: 2D Differential In-gel Electrophoresis for the Identification of Esophageal Scans Cell Cancer-specific Protein Markers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1074/mcp.m100015-mcp200
The paper
Zhou, G., Li, H., DeCamp, D., Chen, S., Shu, H., Gong, Y., Flaig, M., Gillespie, J. W., Hu, N., Taylor, P. R., Emmert-Buck, M. R., Liotta, L. A., Petricoin, E. F., & Zhao, Y. (2002). 2D Differential In-gel Electrophoresis for the Identification of Esophageal Scans Cell Cancer-specific Protein Markers. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.m100015-mcp200

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.