↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative Proteomics by Mass Spectrometry

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Quantitative Proteomics by Mass Spectrometry'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Increased Depth and Breadth of Plasma Protein Quantitation via Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography/Multiple Reaction Monitoring-Mass Spectrometry with Labeled Peptide Standards.
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Quantitative Analysis of the Sirt5-Regulated Lysine Succinylation Proteome in Mammalian Cells.
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 Determining the Composition and Stability of Protein Complexes Using an Integrated Label-Free and Stable Isotope Labeling Strategy.
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 Label-Free Quantitation for Clinical Proteomics.
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Proteogenomic Methods to Improve Genome Annotation
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Mass Spectrometry-Based Quantitative O-GlcNAcomic Analysis.
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Isolating and Quantifying Plasma HDL Proteins by Sequential Density Gradient Ultracentrifugation and Targeted Proteomics.
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 A Method for Label-Free, Differential Top-Down Proteomics. - PubMed - NCBI
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Multiplexed Immunoaffinity Enrichment of Peptides with Anti-peptide Antibodies and Quantification by Stable Isotope Dilution Multiple Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry.
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 High-Throughput Quantitative Proteomics Enabled by Mass Defect-Based 12-Plex DiLeu Isobaric Tags
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Isotopic N,N-Dimethyl Leucine (iDiLeu) for Absolute Quantification of Peptides Using a Standard Curve Approach.
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Selecting Optimal Peptides for Targeted Proteomic Experiments in Human Plasma Using In Vitro Synthesized Proteins as Analytical Standards.
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Using the CPTAC Assay Portal to Identify and Implement Highly Characterized Targeted Proteomics Assays
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Large-Scale and Deep Quantitative Proteome Profiling Using Isobaric Labeling Coupled with Two-Dimensional LC-MS/MS
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 Multiple and Selective Reaction Monitoring Using Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer: Preclinical Large Cohort Analysis.
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 Methods for SWATH™: Data Independent Acquisition on TripleTOF Mass Spectrometers. - PubMed - NCBI
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Measurement of Phosphorylated Peptides with Absolute Quantification.
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 18 Proteomic Analysis of Protein Turnover by Metabolic Whole Rodent Pulse-Chase Isotopic Labeling and Shotgun Mass Spectrometry Analysis
Attention for Chapter 13: Using the CPTAC Assay Portal to Identify and Implement Highly Characterized Targeted Proteomics Assays
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
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.
Chapter title
Using the CPTAC Assay Portal to Identify and Implement Highly Characterized Targeted Proteomics Assays
Chapter number 13
Book title
Quantitative Proteomics by Mass Spectrometry
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-3524-6_13
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-3522-2, 978-1-4939-3524-6
Authors

Whiteaker, Jeffrey R, Halusa, Goran N, Hoofnagle, Andrew N, Sharma, Vagisha, MacLean, Brendan, Yan, Ping, Wrobel, John A, Kennedy, Jacob, Mani, D R, Zimmerman, Lisa J, Meyer, Matthew R, Mesri, Mehdi, Boja, Emily, Carr, Steven A, Chan, Daniel W, Chen, Xian, Chen, Jing, Davies, Sherri R, Ellis, Matthew J C, Fenyö, David, Hiltke, Tara, Ketchum, Karen A, Kinsinger, Chris, Kuhn, Eric, Liebler, Daniel C, Liu, Tao, Loss, Michael, MacCoss, Michael J, Qian, Wei-Jun, Rivers, Robert, Rodland, Karin D, Ruggles, Kelly V, Scott, Mitchell G, Smith, Richard D, Thomas, Stefani, Townsend, R Reid, Whiteley, Gordon, Wu, Chaochao, Zhang, Hui, Zhang, Zhen, Rodriguez, Henry, Paulovich, Amanda G, Jeffrey R. Whiteaker, Goran N. Halusa, Andrew N. Hoofnagle, Vagisha Sharma, Brendan MacLean, Ping Yan, John A. Wrobel, Jacob Kennedy, D. R. Mani, Lisa J. Zimmerman, Matthew R. Meyer, Mehdi Mesri, Emily Boja, Steven A. Carr, Daniel W. Chan, Xian Chen, Jing Chen, Sherri R. Davies, Matthew J. C. Ellis, David Fenyö, Tara Hiltke, Karen A. Ketchum, Chris Kinsinger, Eric Kuhn, Daniel C. Liebler, Tao Liu, Michael Loss, Michael J. MacCoss, Wei-Jun Qian, Robert Rivers, Karin D. Rodland, Kelly V. Ruggles, Mitchell G. Scott, Richard D. Smith, Stefani Thomas, R. Reid Townsend, Gordon Whiteley, Chaochao Wu, Hui Zhang, Zhen Zhang, Henry Rodriguez, Amanda G. Paulovich

Editors

Salvatore Sechi

Abstract

The Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has launched an Assay Portal ( http://assays.cancer.gov ) to serve as an open-source repository of well-characterized targeted proteomic assays. The portal is designed to curate and disseminate highly characterized, targeted mass spectrometry (MS)-based assays by providing detailed assay performance characterization data, standard operating procedures, and access to reagents. Assay content is accessed via the portal through queries to find assays targeting proteins associated with specific cellular pathways, protein complexes, or specific chromosomal regions. The position of the peptide analytes for which there are available assays are mapped relative to other features of interest in the protein, such as sequence domains, isoforms, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and posttranslational modifications. The overarching goals are to enable robust quantification of all human proteins and to standardize the quantification of targeted MS-based assays to ultimately enable harmonization of results over time and across laboratories.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 39%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 22%
Professor 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 1 6%

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 13 February 2016.
All research outputs
#5,408,175
of 7,187,728 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#2,575
of 4,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,672
of 320,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#536
of 957 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,187,728 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,948 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 320,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 957 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.