Cited by 360Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies

Proteomic analysis of normal human urinary proteins isolated by acetone precipitation or ultracentrifugation

Open access
Thongboonkerd, Visith, Mcleish, Kenneth R., Arthur, John M., Klein, Jon B.·2002·Kidney International

Abstract

Background Proteomic techniques have recently become available for large-scale protein analysis. The utility of these techniques in identification of urinary proteins is poorly defined. We constructed a proteome map of normal human urine as a reference protein database by using two differential fractionated techniques to isolate the proteins.Methods Proteins were isolated from urine obtained from normal human volunteers by acetone precipitation or ultracentrifugation, separated by two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (2D-PAGE) and identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry followed by peptide mass fingerprinting.Results A total of 67 protein forms of 47 unique proteins were identified, including transporters, adhesion molecules, complement, chaperones, receptors, enzymes, serpins, cell signaling proteins and matrix proteins. Acetone precipitated more acidic and hydrophilic proteins, whereas ultracentrifugation fractionated more basic, hydrophobic, and membrane proteins. Bioinformatic analysis predicted glycosylation to be the most common explanation for multiple forms of the same protein.Conclusions Combining two differential isolation techniques magnified protein identification from human urine. Proteomic analysis of urinary proteins is a promising tool to study renal physiology and pathophysiology and to determine biomarkers of renal disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2002.kid565.x

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thongboonkerd, V., Mcleish, K. R., Arthur, J. M., & Klein, J. B.
Affiliations
University of Louisville (US)
Venue
Kidney International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-10
Volume
62
Issue
4
Pages
1461-1469
ISSN
0085-2538 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2047018178
Cited by
359
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 13
FWCI
8.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Kidney International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Louisville
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01-HL-66358-01, R01HL066358)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Renal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Keywords
urinary protein, acetone precipitation, ultracentrifugation, protein fractionation, glycosylation, renal biomarkers, renal physiology
MeSH terms
Acetone, Humans, Peptide Mapping, Chemical Precipitation, Proteins, Serine Endopeptidases, Solvents, Staining and Labeling, Ultracentrifugation, Urine, Electrophoresis, Gel, Two-Dimensional, Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization, Computational Biology, Proteomics, Tryptases

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