↓ Skip to main content

An effective protein extraction method for two‐dimensional electrophoresis in the anticancer herb Andrographis paniculata Nees.

Overview of attention for article published in Biotechnology & Applied Biochemistry, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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.
Title
An effective protein extraction method for two‐dimensional electrophoresis in the anticancer herb Andrographis paniculata Nees.
Published in
Biotechnology & Applied Biochemistry, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/bab.1126
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daryush Talei, Alireza Valdiani, Mohd Abdullah Puad

Abstract

Proteomic analysis of plants relies on high yields of pure protein. In plants, protein extraction and purification present a great challenge due to accumulation of a large amount of interfering substances, including polysaccharides, polyphenols, and secondary metabolites. Therefore, it is necessary to modify the extraction protocols. A study was conducted to compare four protein extraction and precipitation methods for proteomic analysis. The results showed significant differences in protein content among the four methods. The chloroform-trichloroacetic acid-acetone method using 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid (HEPES) buffer provided the best results in terms of protein content, pellets, spot resolution, and intensity of unique spots detected. An overall of 83 qualitative or quantitative significant differential spots were found among the four methods. Based on the 2-DE gel map, the method is expected to benefit the development of high-level proteomic and biochemical studies of Andrographis paniculata, which may also be applied to other recalcitrant medicinal plant tissues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 22%
Other 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 33%
Chemical Engineering 1 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 11%
Physics and Astronomy 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
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 19 September 2013.
All research outputs
#21,011,157
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology & Applied Biochemistry
#748
of 1,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,046
of 214,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology & Applied Biochemistry
#14
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,187 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 214,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.