The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Gel-Based Versus Gel-Free Proteomics: A Review
Abstract
With the sequencing of the genome of over 150 organisms, the field of biology has been revolutionised. Instead of studying one gene or protein at the time, it is now possible to study the effect of physiological or pathological changes on the expression of all genes or proteins in the organism. Proteomics aims at the simultaneous analysis of all proteins expressed by a cell, tissue or organism in a specific physiological condition. Because proteins are the effector molecules in all organisms, it is evident that changes in the physiological condition of an organism will be reflected by changes in protein expression and/or processing. Since the formulation of the concept of proteomics in the mid 90's proteomics has relied heavily on 2 dimensional gel electrophoresis (2DGE) for the separation and visualization of proteins. 2DGE, however, has a number of inherent drawbacks. 2DGE is costly, fairly insensitive to low copy proteins and cannot be used for the entire proteome. Therefore, over the years, several gel-free proteomics techniques have been developed to either fill the gaps left by 2DGE or to entirely abolish the gel based techniques. This review summarizes the most important gel-free and gel-based proteomics techniques and compares their advantages and drawbacks.
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
Cited by
Roverso, M., Brioschi, M., Banfi, C., Visentin, S., Burlina, S., Seraglia, R., Traldi, P., & Lapolla, A. (2016) · European Journal of Mass Spectrometry · doi:10.1255/ejms.1412 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Baggerman, G., Vierstraete, E., De Loof, A., & Schoofs, L.
- Venue
- Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening
- Publisher
- Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 669-677
- ISSN
- 1386-2073 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1989926783
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.18
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gel-Based Versus Gel-Free Proteomics: A Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2174/138620705774962490
- The paper
- Baggerman, G., Vierstraete, E., De Loof, A., & Schoofs, L. (2005). Gel-Based Versus Gel-Free Proteomics: A Review. Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening. https://doi.org/10.2174/138620705774962490
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.