358 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30726097)
1. 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]
2. Active Instrument Engagement Combined with a Real-Time Database Search for Improved Performance of Sample Multiplexing Workflows.
Erickson BK; Mintseris J; Schweppe DK; Navarrete-Perea J; Erickson AR; Nusinow DP; Paulo JA; Gygi SP
J Proteome Res; 2019 Mar; 18(3):1299-1306. PubMed ID: 30658528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Quantitative accuracy in mass spectrometry based proteomics of complex samples: the impact of labeling and precursor interference.
Sandberg A; Branca RM; Lehtiö J; Forshed J
J Proteomics; 2014 Jan; 96():133-44. PubMed ID: 24211767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reproducibility, Specificity and Accuracy of Relative Quantification Using Spectral Library-based Data-independent Acquisition.
Barkovits K; Pacharra S; Pfeiffer K; Steinbach S; Eisenacher M; Marcus K; Uszkoreit J
Mol Cell Proteomics; 2020 Jan; 19(1):181-197. PubMed ID: 31699904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Reproducible workflow for multiplexed deep-scale proteome and phosphoproteome analysis of tumor tissues by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.
Mertins P; Tang LC; Krug K; Clark DJ; Gritsenko MA; Chen L; Clauser KR; Clauss TR; Shah P; Gillette MA; Petyuk VA; Thomas SN; Mani DR; Mundt F; Moore RJ; Hu Y; Zhao R; Schnaubelt M; Keshishian H; Monroe ME; Zhang Z; Udeshi ND; Mani D; Davies SR; Townsend RR; Chan DW; Smith RD; Zhang H; Liu T; Carr SA
Nat Protoc; 2018 Jul; 13(7):1632-1661. PubMed ID: 29988108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. MS3-IDQ: Utilizing MS3 Spectra beyond Quantification Yields Increased Coverage of the Phosphoproteome in Isobaric Tag Experiments.
Berberich MJ; Paulo JA; Everley RA
J Proteome Res; 2018 Apr; 17(4):1741-1747. PubMed ID: 29461835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Extensive and Accurate Benchmarking of DIA Acquisition Methods and Software Tools Using a Complex Proteomic Standard.
Gotti C; Roux-Dalvai F; Joly-Beauparlant C; Mangnier L; Leclercq M; Droit A
J Proteome Res; 2021 Oct; 20(10):4801-4814. PubMed ID: 34472865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. A critical comparison of three MS-based approaches for quantitative proteomics analysis.
Taverna D; Gaspari M
J Mass Spectrom; 2021 Jan; 56(1):e4669. PubMed ID: 33128495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Benchmarking quantitative label-free LC-MS data processing workflows using a complex spiked proteomic standard dataset.
Ramus C; Hovasse A; Marcellin M; Hesse AM; Mouton-Barbosa E; Bouyssié D; Vaca S; Carapito C; Chaoui K; Bruley C; Garin J; Cianférani S; Ferro M; Van Dorssaeler A; Burlet-Schiltz O; Schaeffer C; Couté Y; Gonzalez de Peredo A
J Proteomics; 2016 Jan; 132():51-62. PubMed ID: 26585461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An Adaptive Pipeline To Maximize Isobaric Tagging Data in Large-Scale MS-Based Proteomics.
Corthésy J; Theofilatos K; Mavroudi S; Macron C; Cominetti O; Remlawi M; Ferraro F; Núñez Galindo A; Kussmann M; Likothanassis S; Dayon L
J Proteome Res; 2018 Jun; 17(6):2165-2173. PubMed ID: 29695160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. High-throughput, in-depth and estimated absolute quantification of plasma proteome using data-independent acquisition/mass spectrometry ("HIAP-DIA").
Zhou Y; Tan Z; Xue P; Wang Y; Li X; Guan F
Proteomics; 2021 Mar; 21(5):e2000264. PubMed ID: 33460299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Relative protein quantification and accessible biology in lung tumor proteomes from four LC-MS/MS discovery platforms.
Stewart PA; Fang B; Slebos RJ; Zhang G; Borne AL; Fellows K; Teer JK; Chen YA; Welsh E; Eschrich SA; Haura EB; Koomen JM
Proteomics; 2017 Mar; 17(6):. PubMed ID: 28195392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Automated Workflow for Peptide-Level Quantitation from DIA/SWATH-MS Data.
Gupta S; Röst H
Methods Mol Biol; 2021; 2228():453-468. PubMed ID: 33950509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. DeMix-Q: Quantification-Centered Data Processing Workflow.
Zhang B; Käll L; Zubarev RA
Mol Cell Proteomics; 2016 Apr; 15(4):1467-78. PubMed ID: 26729709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Label-free quantification in ion mobility-enhanced data-independent acquisition proteomics.
Distler U; Kuharev J; Navarro P; Tenzer S
Nat Protoc; 2016 Apr; 11(4):795-812. PubMed ID: 27010757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Protein Biomarker Discovery in Non-depleted Serum by Spectral Library-Based Data-Independent Acquisition Mass Spectrometry.
Kraut A; Louwagie M; Bruley C; Masselon C; Couté Y; Brun V; Hesse AM
Methods Mol Biol; 2019; 1959():129-150. PubMed ID: 30852820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Optimization of Data-Independent Acquisition Mass Spectrometry for Deep and Highly Sensitive Proteomic Analysis.
Kawashima Y; Watanabe E; Umeyama T; Nakajima D; Hattori M; Honda K; Ohara O
Int J Mol Sci; 2019 Nov; 20(23):. PubMed ID: 31779068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A Versatile Isobaric Tag Enables Proteome Quantification in Data-Dependent and Data-Independent Acquisition Modes.
Tian X; de Vries MP; Permentier HP; Bischoff R
Anal Chem; 2020 Dec; 92(24):16149-16157. PubMed ID: 33256395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
