↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of two label-free global quantitation methods, APEX and 2D gel electrophoresis, applied to the Shigella dysenteriae proteome

Overview of attention for article published in Proteome Science, June 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of two label-free global quantitation methods, APEX and 2D gel electrophoresis, applied to the Shigella dysenteriae proteome
Published in
Proteome Science, June 2009
DOI 10.1186/1477-5956-7-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Srilatha Kuntumalla, John C Braisted, Shih-Ting Huang, Prashanth P Parmar, David J Clark, Hamid Alami, Quanshun Zhang, Arthur Donohue-Rolfe, Saul Tzipori, Robert D Fleischmann, Scott N Peterson, Rembert Pieper

Abstract

The in vitro stationary phase proteome of the human pathogen Shigella dysenteriae serotype 1 (SD1) was quantitatively analyzed in Coomassie Blue G250 (CBB)-stained 2D gels. More than four hundred and fifty proteins, of which 271 were associated with distinct gel spots, were identified. In parallel, we employed 2D-LC-MS/MS followed by the label-free computationally modified spectral counting method APEX for absolute protein expression measurements. Of the 4502 genome-predicted SD1 proteins, 1148 proteins were identified with a false positive discovery rate of 5% and quantitated using 2D-LC-MS/MS and APEX. The dynamic range of the APEX method was approximately one order of magnitude higher than that of CBB-stained spot intensity quantitation. A squared Pearson correlation analysis revealed a reasonably good correlation (R2 = 0.67) for protein quantities surveyed by both methods. The correlation was decreased for protein subsets with specific physicochemical properties, such as low Mr values and high hydropathy scores. Stoichiometric ratios of subunits of protein complexes characterized in E. coli were compared with APEX quantitative ratios of orthologous SD1 protein complexes. A high correlation was observed for subunits of soluble cellular protein complexes in several cases, demonstrating versatile applications of the APEX method in quantitative proteomics.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
China 2 4%
Malaysia 1 2%
Uganda 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 44 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 28%
Professor 6 11%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 22%
Chemistry 4 7%
Unspecified 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 8 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2009.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Proteome Science
#114
of 208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,012
of 122,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proteome Science
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 208 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 122,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.