Cited by 153Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies

Clinical applications of quantitative proteomics using targeted and untargeted data-independent acquisition techniques

Open access
Meyer, Jesse G., Schilling, Birgit·2017·Expert Review of Proteomics

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: While selected/multiple-reaction monitoring (SRM or MRM) is considered the gold standard for quantitative protein measurement, emerging data-independent acquisition (DIA) using high-resolution scans have opened a new dimension of high-throughput, comprehensive quantitative proteomics. These newer methodologies are particularly well suited for discovery of biomarker candidates from human disease samples, and for investigating and understanding human disease pathways. Areas covered: This article reviews the current state of targeted and untargeted DIA mass spectrometry-based proteomic workflows, including SRM, parallel-reaction monitoring (PRM) and untargeted DIA (e.g., SWATH). Corresponding bioinformatics strategies, as well as application in biological and clinical studies are presented. Expert commentary: Nascent application of highly-multiplexed untargeted DIA, such as SWATH, for accurate protein quantification from clinically relevant and disease-related samples shows great potential to comprehensively investigate biomarker candidates and understand disease.

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 · 10.1080/14789450.2017.1322904

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DIA results in identification of nearly all detectable peptides within a selected mass range, allowing comprehensive and accurate quantification of identified proteins with minimal missing values.

    “Therefore, DIA results in the identification of nearly all detectable peptides within a selected mass range, allowing for comprehensive and accurate quantification of identified proteins in the sample with minimal missing values [81, 82].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [25]Hunter C Collins B Liu Y Multi laboratory reproducibility and performance of SWATH™ acquisition for proteomic analyses Proceedings of the 63rd Annual ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry & Allied Topics St. Louis, MO May 31 June 4, 2015 2015
  2. [29]Novy K Balagtas C Muntel J High content protein quantification of liver tumor biopsies by hyper reaction monitoring mass spectrometry The Molecular Medicine Tri-Conference San Francisco, CA, USA 2017
  3. [53]Meyer JG Schilling B Gibson BW Computational workflows to improve DIA data analysis without reference libraries for quantitative proteomics and PTM analysis Proceedings of the 64th Annual ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry & Allied Topics San Antonio, TX June 5–9, 2016
  4. [83]Hunter CL Collins B Gillet L Increasing depth of coverage in data independent acquisition with acquisition improvements and higher sample loads Proccedings of the 61st Annual ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry & Allied Topics Baltimore, MD June 15–19, 2014

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meyer, J. G., & Schilling, B.
Affiliations
Buck Institute for Research on Aging (US)
Corresponding author
Schilling, Birgit
Venue
Expert Review of Proteomics
Published
2017-05-04
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
419-429
ISSN
  • 1478-9450 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-8387
OpenAlex
W2610156696
Cited by
151
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Expert Review of Proteomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R24DK085610)
  • NIH (S10 OD016281)
  • NIH T32 (T32G000266)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Keywords
quantitative proteomics, data-independent acquisition, multiple reaction monitoring, parallel reaction monitoring, SWATH, biomarker discovery, clinical proteomics, high-resolution mass spectrometry, bioinformatics pipeline, disease pathways
MeSH terms
Humans, Biomarkers, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Proteomics

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