Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Proteome coverage and accurate protein quantification are both important for evaluating biological systems; however, compromises between quantification, coverage, and mass spectrometry (MS) resources are often necessary. Consequently, experimental parameters that impact coverage and quantification must be adjusted, depending on experimental goals. Among these parameters is offline prefractionation, which is utilized in MS-based proteomics to decrease sample complexity resulting in higher overall proteome coverage upon MS analysis. Prefractionation leads to increases in required MS analysis time, although this is often mitigated by isobaric labeling using tandem-mass tags (TMT), which allow samples to be multiplexed. Here we evaluate common prefractionation schemes, TMT variants, and MS acquisition methods and their impact on protein quantification and coverage. Furthermore, we provide recommendations for experimental design depending on the experimental goals.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.4c00014 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!