104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38944097)
1. Robust assessment of sample preparation protocols for proteomics of cells and tissues.
Gomes FA; Souza Junior DR; Massafera MP; Ronsein GE
Biochim Biophys Acta Proteins Proteom; 2024 Jun; 1872(5):141030. PubMed ID: 38944097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of In-Solution, FASP, and S-Trap Based Digestion Methods for Bottom-Up Proteomic Studies.
Ludwig KR; Schroll MM; Hummon AB
J Proteome Res; 2018 Jul; 17(7):2480-2490. PubMed ID: 29754492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Ecological Monitoring and Omics: A Comprehensive Comparison of Workflows for Mass Spectrometry-Based Quantitative Proteomics of Fish (
Nissa MU; Pinto N; Varshnay A; Goswami M; Srivastava S
OMICS; 2022 Sep; 26(9):489-503. PubMed ID: 36036978
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of FASP, SP3, and iST Protocols for Proteomic Sample Preparation in the Low Microgram Range.
Sielaff M; Kuharev J; Bohn T; Hahlbrock J; Bopp T; Tenzer S; Distler U
J Proteome Res; 2017 Nov; 16(11):4060-4072. PubMed ID: 28948796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of sample preparation methods for mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis of barley leaves.
Wang WQ; Jensen ON; Møller IM; Hebelstrup KH; Rogowska-Wrzesinska A
Plant Methods; 2018; 14():72. PubMed ID: 30159003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Filter-Aided Sample Preparation for Proteome Analysis.
Wiśniewski JR
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1841():3-10. PubMed ID: 30259475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of different digestion methods for proteomic analysis of isolated cells and FFPE tissue samples.
Pirog A; Faktor J; Urban-Wojciuk Z; Kote S; Chruściel E; Arcimowicz Ł; Marek-Trzonkowska N; Vojtesek B; Hupp TR; Al Shboul S; Brennan PM; Smoleński RT; Goodlett DR; Dapic I
Talanta; 2021 Oct; 233():122568. PubMed ID: 34215064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Modified filter-aided sample preparation (FASP) method increases peptide and protein identifications for shotgun proteomics.
Ni MW; Wang L; Chen W; Mou HZ; Zhou J; Zheng ZG
Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom; 2017 Jan; 31(2):171-178. PubMed ID: 27794190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative evaluation of two methods for LC-MS/MS proteomic analysis of formalin fixed and paraffin embedded tissues.
Davalieva K; Kiprijanovska S; Dimovski A; Rosoklija G; Dwork AJ
J Proteomics; 2021 Mar; 235():104117. PubMed ID: 33453434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comprehensive comparison of sample preparation workflows for proteomics.
Zheng W; Yang P; Sun C; Zhang Y
Mol Omics; 2022 Jul; 18(6):555-567. PubMed ID: 35671090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Label-Free Quantitative Analysis of Mitochondrial Proteomes Using the Multienzyme Digestion-Filter Aided Sample Preparation (MED-FASP) and "Total Protein Approach".
Wiśniewski JR
Methods Mol Biol; 2017; 1567():69-77. PubMed ID: 28276014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Development of a sample preparation method for micro-proteomics analysis of the formaldehyde-fixed paraffin-embedded liver tissue samples.
Wang YE; Zeng WL; Cao ST; Zou JP; Liu CT; Shi JM; Li J; Qiu F; Wang Y
Talanta; 2024 Jan; 266(Pt 2):125106. PubMed ID: 37639870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of Different Sample Preparation Protocols Reveals Lysis Buffer-Specific Extraction Biases in Gram-Negative Bacteria and Human Cells.
Glatter T; Ahrné E; Schmidt A
J Proteome Res; 2015 Nov; 14(11):4472-85. PubMed ID: 26412744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Sensitivity of mass spectrometry analysis depends on the shape of the filtration unit used for filter aided sample preparation (FASP).
Lipecka J; Chhuon C; Bourderioux M; Bessard MA; van Endert P; Edelman A; Guerrera IC
Proteomics; 2016 Jul; 16(13):1852-7. PubMed ID: 27219663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Sample Preparation by Easy Extraction and Digestion (SPEED) - A Universal, Rapid, and Detergent-free Protocol for Proteomics Based on Acid Extraction.
Doellinger J; Schneider A; Hoeller M; Lasch P
Mol Cell Proteomics; 2020 Jan; 19(1):209-222. PubMed ID: 31754045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of two FFPE preparation methods using label-free shotgun proteomics: Application to tissues of diverticulitis patients.
Quesada-Calvo F; Bertrand V; Longuespée R; Delga A; Mazzucchelli G; Smargiasso N; Baiwir D; Delvenne P; Malaise M; De Pauw-Gillet MC; De Pauw E; Louis E; Meuwis MA
J Proteomics; 2015 Jan; 112():250-61. PubMed ID: 25218866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Does filter-aided sample preparation provide sufficient method linearity for quantitative plant shotgun proteomics?
Leonova T; Ihling C; Saoud M; Frolova N; Rennert R; Wessjohann LA; Frolov A
Front Plant Sci; 2022; 13():874761. PubMed ID: 36507396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reliable FASP-based procedures for optimal quantitative proteomic and phosphoproteomic analysis on samples from acute myeloid leukemia patients.
Hernandez-Valladares M; Aasebø E; Mjaavatten O; Vaudel M; Bruserud Ø; Berven F; Selheim F
Biol Proced Online; 2016; 18():13. PubMed ID: 27330413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Filter Aided Sample Preparation - A tutorial.
Wiśniewski JR
Anal Chim Acta; 2019 Dec; 1090():23-30. PubMed ID: 31655642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Enhanced FASP (eFASP) to increase proteome coverage and sample recovery for quantitative proteomic experiments.
Erde J; Loo RR; Loo JA
J Proteome Res; 2014 Apr; 13(4):1885-95. PubMed ID: 24552128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
