The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Advances in protein complex analysis using mass spectrometry
Abstract
Proteins often function as components of larger complexes to perform a specific function, and formation of these complexes may be regulated. For example, intracellular signalling events often require transient and/or regulated protein–protein interactions for propagation, and protein binding to a specific DNA sequence, RNA molecule or metabolite is often regulated to modulate a particular cellular function. Thus, characterizing protein complexes can offer important insights into protein function. This review describes recent important advances in mass spectrometry (MS)‐based techniques for the analysis of protein complexes. Following brief descriptions of how proteins are identified using MS, and general protein complex purification approaches, we address two of the most important issues in these types of studies: specificity and background protein contaminants. Two basic strategies for increasing specificity and decreasing background are presented: whereas (1) tandem affinity purification (TAP) of tagged proteins of interest can dramatically improve the signal‐to‐noise ratio via the generation of cleaner samples, (2) stable isotopic labelling of proteins may be used to discriminate between contaminants and bona fide binding partners using quantitative MS techniques. Examples, as well as advantages and disadvantages of each approach, are presented.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Ong, S.-E., Blagoev, B., Kratchmarova, I., Kristensen, D. B., Steen, H., Pandey, A., & Mann, M. (2002) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m200025-mcp200 · Cited by 5,574
A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Uetz, P., Giot, L., Cagney, G., Mansfield, T. A., Judson, R. S., Knight, J. R., Lockshon, D., Narayan, V., Srinivasan, M., Pochart, P., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35001009 · Cited by 4,706
Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags
Gygi, S. P., Rist, B., Gerber, S. A., Turecek, F., Gelb, M. H., & Aebersold, R. (1999) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/13690 · Cited by 4,683 · cited 2×
“chemical attachment of isotopic tags to proteins or peptides in solution, a strategy referred to as isotope-coded affinity tagging (ICAT; Gygi et al. 1999).”
BackgroundMethodRoss, P. L., Huang, Y. N., Marchese, J. N., Williamson, B., Parker, K., Hattan, S., Khainovski, N., Pillai, S., Dey, S., Daniels, S., et al. (2004) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m400129-mcp200 · Cited by 4,401
Cited by
Interpretation of Shotgun Proteomic Data
Nesvizhskii, A. I., & Aebersold, R. (2005) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.r500012-mcp200 · Cited by 1,025
Self-citationGoudreault, M., D'Ambrosio, L. M., Kean, M. J., Mullin, M. J., Larsen, B. G., Sanchez, A., Chaudhry, S., Chen, G. I., Sicheri, F., Nesvizhskii, A. I., et al. (2009) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m800266-mcp200 · Cited by 359
Self-citationAffinity-purification mass spectrometry (AP-MS) of serine/threonine phosphatases
Chen, G. I., & Gingras, A.-C. (2007) · Methods · doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2007.02.018 · Cited by 114
Self-citationProteome analysis of the HIV-1 Gag interactome
Engeland, C. E., Brown, N. P., Börner, K., Schümann, M., Krause, E., Kaderali, L., Müller, G. A., & Kräusslich, H.-G. (2014) · Virology · doi:10.1016/j.virol.2014.04.038 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Gingras, A., Aebersold, R., & Raught, B.
- Venue
- The Journal of Physiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-02
- Volume
- 563
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 11-21
- ISSN
- 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7793
- OpenAlex
- W2153320040
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 8.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.