Cited by 57Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies

Quantitative Clinical Proteomics by Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Assessing the Platform

Hoofnagle, Andrew N·2010·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Clinical laboratories use electrospray ionization and mass spectrometry (MS)1 every day to measure dozens of different small molecule analytes. The capacity to precisely quantify these biomarkers has improved patient care. To build on the successful implementation of novel MS methodologies, many clinical mass spectrometrists hope to expand the list of measurable analytes to include peptides and proteins, several examples of which have been reported and reviewed (1). One can also envision the translation of novel biomarkers from the research-grade MS assays, with which they are discovered, to clinically acceptable MS assays for diagnosis, prognosis, and evaluation of therapeutic efficacy. An argument can be made that investigators should use clinically acceptable MS assays from the outset (2), which would facilitate the transition from research/discovery to clinical practice. Given the successes over the last few years in precisely measuring proteins by MS in clinically relevant matrices, this outcome may not be too much to ask. Traditionally, the word proteomics has encompassed efforts aimed at simultaneously measuring many proteins in a given complex sample. Shotgun proteomic experiments, which attempt to identify all of the proteins in a complex sample, and targeted proteomic experiments, which attempt to quantify a subset of the proteins known to exist in a complex sample, can both be carried out using liquid chromatography–tandem MS (LC-MS/MS). Shotgun proteomics is alrea…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1373/clinchem.2009.134049

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoofnagle, A. N.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Hoofnagle, Andrew N
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2010-02-01
Volume
56
Issue
2
Pages
161-164
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2141969501
Cited by
57
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
clinical proteomics, targeted proteomics, multiple reaction monitoring, isotope dilution, protein quantification, clinical mass spectrometry, clinical laboratory implementation, trypsin digestion, clinical biomarkers, assay validation
MeSH terms
Chromatography, Liquid, Humans, Proteomics, Tandem Mass Spectrometry

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