Nanoproteomics comes of age
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Nanoproteomics, which is defined as quantitative proteome profiling of small populations of cells (<5000 cells), can reveal critical information related to rare cell populations, hard-to-obtain clinical specimens, and the cellular heterogeneity of pathological tissues. Areas covered: We present a brief review of the recent technological advances in nanoproteomics. These advances include new technologies or approaches covering major areas of proteomics workflow ranging from sample isolation, sample processing, high-resolution separations, to MS instrumentation. Expert commentary: We comment on the current state of nanoproteomics and discuss perspectives on both future technological directions and potential enabling applications.
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
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.
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?
A major technical gap in top-down proteomics is that it cannot analyze low amounts of biological material, which restricts its use for rare cells, fine needle aspiration biopsies, and tissue substructures.
“However, many challenges remain especially when dealing with scant biological samples, such as isolated rare cells, fine needle aspiration biopsies, and tissue substructures.5,17”
From Sensitive Top-Down Proteomics Analysis of a Low Number of Mammalian Cells Using a Nanodroplet Sample Processing Platform (2020) · cites this paper as [17]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 50
- Authors
- Zhu, Y., Piehowski, P. D., Kelly, R. T., & Qian, W.-J.
- Affiliations
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US)
- Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory , Richland, WA, USA
- Venue
- Expert Review of Proteomics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-10-30
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 865-871
- ISSN
- 1478-9450 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-8387
- PMC
- PMC6415674
- OpenAlex
- W2899038378
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 2.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Expert Review of Proteomics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UC4 DK104167)
- 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 › Advanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- rare cell populations, cellular heterogeneity, sample isolation, high-resolution separation, mass spectrometry instrumentation, proteomics workflow
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Chromatography, Liquid, Mammals, Protein Processing, Post-Translational, Electrophoresis, Capillary, Spectrometry, Mass, Electrospray Ionization, Nanotechnology, Proteomics, Workflow, Single-Cell Analysis, Laser Capture Microdissection
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
