Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39161190›Full record

ArticleJournal of proteome research2024

Differences in Protein Capture by SP3 and SP4 Demonstrate Mechanistic Insights of Proteomics Cleanup Techniques.

Jessica M Conforti, Amanda M Ziegler, Charli S Worth, Adhwaitha M Nambiar, Jacob T Bailey, Joseph H Taube, Elyssia S Gallagher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of proteome research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jessica M ConfortiDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97348, Waco, Texas 76798, United States.ORCID 0009-0001-0743-670X
Amanda M ZieglerDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97348, Waco, Texas 76798, United States.
Charli S WorthDepartment of Biology, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97388, Waco, Texas 76798, United States.
Adhwaitha M NambiarDepartment of Biology, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97388, Waco, Texas 76798, United States.
Jacob T BaileyDepartment of Biology, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97388, Waco, Texas 76798, United States.
Joseph H TaubeDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97348, Waco, Texas 76798, United States.
Elyssia S GallagherDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97348, Waco, Texas 76798, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5411-7285

Funding

Assessing the Biomolecular Structures that Result from Electrospray IonizationR35GM150464 · NIGMS · BAYLOR UNIVERSITY · PI Elyssia S Gallagher · 2023 to 2026
$1.4M
KDM6A function in epithelial-mesenchymal plasticityR15GM146188 · NIGMS · BAYLOR UNIVERSITY · PI TAUBE, JOSEPH H. · 2022 to 2023
$493k
NIGMS NIH HHS R15 GM146188NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM150464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of proteomics experiments is to identify proteins to observe changes in cellular processes and diseases. One challenge in proteomics is the removal of contaminants following protein extraction, which can limit protein identifications. Single-pot, solid-phase-enhanced sample preparation (SP3) is a cleanup technique in which proteins are captured on carboxylate-modified particles through a proposed hydrophilic-interaction-liquid-chromatography (HILIC)-like mechanism. Recent results have suggested that proteins are captured in SP3 due to a protein-aggregation mechanism. Solvent precipitation, single-pot, solid-phase-enhanced sample preparation (SP4) is a newer cleanup technique that employs protein aggregation to capture proteins without modified particles. We hypothesize that differences in capture mechanisms of SP3 and SP4 affect which proteins are identified by each cleanup technique. Herein, we assess the proteins identified and enriched using SP3 versus SP4 for MCF7 subcellular fractions and correlate protein capture in each method to protein hydrophobicity. Our results indicate that SP3 captures more hydrophilic proteins through a combination of HILIC-like and protein-aggregation mechanisms, while SP4 captures more hydrophobic proteins through a protein-aggregation mechanism. Ultimately, we demonstrate that protein-capture mechanisms are distinct, and the selection of a cleanup technique that yields high proteome coverage is dependent on protein-sample hydrophobicity. Data has been deposited into MassIVE (MSV000094130) and ProteomeXchange (PXD049965).

Indexed as

Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsProteomicsChromatography, LiquidHumansMCF-7 CellsProtein AggregatesProteinsProtein AggregatesProteinsdetergent-assisted digestionmass spectrometry (MS)proteomicssample preparationsingle-pot, solid-phase-enhanced sample preparation (SP3)sodium deoxycholate (SDC)solvent precipitation, single-pot, solid-phase-enhanced sample preparation (SP4)

Identifiers

PMID39161190
PMCPMC12333462

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.