250 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29635916)
1. Proteome-Wide Evaluation of Two Common Protein Quantification Methods.
O'Connell JD; Paulo JA; O'Brien JJ; Gygi SP
J Proteome Res; 2018 May; 17(5):1934-1942. PubMed ID: 29635916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Analysis of Reproducibility of Proteome Coverage and Quantitation Using Isobaric Mass Tags (iTRAQ and TMT).
Casey TM; Khan JM; Bringans SD; Koudelka T; Takle PS; Downs RA; Livk A; Syme RA; Tan KC; Lipscombe RJ
J Proteome Res; 2017 Feb; 16(2):384-392. PubMed ID: 28152591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. MS-EmpiRe Utilizes Peptide-level Noise Distributions for Ultra-sensitive Detection of Differentially Expressed Proteins.
Ammar C; Gruber M; Csaba G; Zimmer R
Mol Cell Proteomics; 2019 Sep; 18(9):1880-1892. PubMed ID: 31235637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of label-free and label-based strategies for proteome analysis of hepatoma cell lines.
Megger DA; Pott LL; Ahrens M; Padden J; Bracht T; Kuhlmann K; Eisenacher M; Meyer HE; Sitek B
Biochim Biophys Acta; 2014 May; 1844(5):967-76. PubMed ID: 23954498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An Efficient, Amine-Specific, and Cost-Effective Method for TMT 6/11-plex Labeling Improves the Proteome Coverage, Quantitative Accuracy and Precision.
Cai Y; Chang C; Yang Q; Liao R
J Proteome Res; 2024 Jun; 23(6):2186-2194. PubMed ID: 38664393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Systematic evaluation of label-free and super-SILAC quantification for proteome expression analysis.
Tebbe A; Klammer M; Sighart S; Schaab C; Daub H
Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom; 2015 May; 29(9):795-801. PubMed ID: 26377007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of Protein Quantification in a Complex Background by DIA and TMT Workflows with Fixed Instrument Time.
Muntel J; Kirkpatrick J; Bruderer R; Huang T; Vitek O; Ori A; Reiter L
J Proteome Res; 2019 Mar; 18(3):1340-1351. PubMed ID: 30726097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation and Improvement of Quantification Accuracy in Isobaric Mass Tag-Based Protein Quantification Experiments.
Ahrné E; Glatter T; Viganò C; Schubert Cv; Nigg EA; Schmidt A
J Proteome Res; 2016 Aug; 15(8):2537-47. PubMed ID: 27345528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of quantitation methods in proteomics to define relevant toxicological information on AhR activation of HepG2 cells by BaP.
Wang Z; Karkossa I; Großkopf H; Rolle-Kampczyk U; Hackermüller J; von Bergen M; Schubert K
Toxicology; 2021 Jan; 448():152652. PubMed ID: 33278487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A multi-model statistical approach for proteomic spectral count quantitation.
Branson OE; Freitas MA
J Proteomics; 2016 Jul; 144():23-32. PubMed ID: 27260494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Systematic comparison of label-free, metabolic labeling, and isobaric chemical labeling for quantitative proteomics on LTQ Orbitrap Velos.
Li Z; Adams RM; Chourey K; Hurst GB; Hettich RL; Pan C
J Proteome Res; 2012 Mar; 11(3):1582-90. PubMed ID: 22188275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A peptide-retrieval strategy enables significant improvement of quantitative performance without compromising confidence of identification.
Tu C; Shen S; Sheng Q; Shyr Y; Qu J
J Proteomics; 2017 Jan; 152():276-282. PubMed ID: 27903464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Segmented MS/MS acquisition of a1 ion-based strategy for in-depth proteome quantitation.
Wang Z; Liu C; Wang S; Hou X; Gong P; Li X; Liang Z; Liu J; Zhang L; Zhang Y
Anal Chim Acta; 2022 Nov; 1232():340491. PubMed ID: 36257755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Limits for Resolving Isobaric Tandem Mass Tag Reporter Ions Using Phase-Constrained Spectrum Deconvolution.
Kelstrup CD; Aizikov K; Batth TS; Kreutzman A; Grinfeld D; Lange O; Mourad D; Makarov AA; Olsen JV
J Proteome Res; 2018 Nov; 17(11):4008-4016. PubMed ID: 30220210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Experimental Null Method to Guide the Development of Technical Procedures and to Control False-Positive Discovery in Quantitative Proteomics.
Shen X; Hu Q; Li J; Wang J; Qu J
J Proteome Res; 2015 Oct; 14(10):4147-57. PubMed ID: 26051676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Benchmarking stable isotope labeling based quantitative proteomics.
Altelaar AF; Frese CK; Preisinger C; Hennrich ML; Schram AW; Timmers HT; Heck AJ; Mohammed S
J Proteomics; 2013 Aug; 88():14-26. PubMed ID: 23085607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accurate and Sensitive Quantitation of the Dynamic Heat Shock Proteome Using Tandem Mass Tags.
Storey AJ; Hardman RE; Byrum SD; Mackintosh SG; Edmondson RD; Wahls WP; Tackett AJ; Lewis JA
J Proteome Res; 2020 Mar; 19(3):1183-1195. PubMed ID: 32027144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Set of Novel Automated Quantitative Microproteomics Protocols for Small Sample Amounts and Its Application to Kidney Tissue Substructures.
de Graaf EL; Pellegrini D; McDonnell LA
J Proteome Res; 2016 Dec; 15(12):4722-4730. PubMed ID: 27809536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Isobaric Labeling-Based LC-MS/MS Strategy for Comprehensive Profiling of Human Pancreatic Tissue Proteome.
Liu CW; Zhang Q
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1788():215-224. PubMed ID: 28986817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparative evaluation of label-free quantification strategies.
Zhao L; Cong X; Zhai L; Hu H; Xu JY; Zhao W; Zhu M; Tan M; Ye BC
J Proteomics; 2020 Mar; 215():103669. PubMed ID: 31987925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
