↓ Skip to main content

Difference Gel Electrophoresis

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Difference Gel Electrophoresis'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Two-Dimensional Gel Electrophoresis and 2D-DIGE
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Comparative DIGE Proteomics
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 2D-DIGE and Fluorescence Image Analysis
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 DIGE Analysis Software and Protein Identification Approaches
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Native DIGE: Efficient Tool to Elucidate Protein Interactomes
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Comparative Two-Dimensional Fluorescence Gel Electrophoresis
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 DIGE-Based Phosphoproteomic Analysis
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 DIGE Saturation Labeling for Scarce Amounts of Protein from Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) Tissue
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Comparative 3-Sample DIGE Analysis of Skeletal Muscles
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 DIGE Analysis of ProteoMinerTM Fractionated Serum/Plasma Samples
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 DIGE Analysis of Human Tissues
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 DIGE Analysis of Animal Tissues
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Rapid 2D DIGE Proteomic Analysis of Mouse Liver
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Proteomic Analysis of Lung Tissue by DIGE
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 Comparative Testis Tissue Proteomics Using 2-Dye Versus 3-Dye DIGE Analysis
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 DIGE Analysis of Fish Tissues
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Protein Digestion for DIGE Analysis
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 18 Subcellular Fractionation for DIGE-Based Proteomics
  20. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 19 DIGE Analysis of Immunodepleted Plasma
  21. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 20 Elucidating Cellular Metabolism and Protein Difference Data from DIGE Proteomics Experiments Using Enzyme Assays
  22. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 21 Enzyme Assay Methods to Validate DIGE Proteomics Data
  23. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 22 Immunoblot Analysis of DIGE-Based Proteomics
  24. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 23 Immunofluorescence Microscopy for DIGE-Based Proteomics
Attention for Chapter 18: Subcellular Fractionation for DIGE-Based Proteomics
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
Subcellular Fractionation for DIGE-Based Proteomics
Chapter number 18
Book title
Difference Gel Electrophoresis
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7268-5_18
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7267-8, 978-1-4939-7268-5
Authors

Sandra Murphy

Abstract

Mass spectrometry-based protein methodologies have revolutionized the field of analytical biochemistry and enable the identification of hundreds to thousands of proteins in biological fluids, cell lines, and tissue. This methodology requires the initial separation of a protein constellation and this has been successfully achieved using gel-based techniques, particularly that of two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE). However, given the complexity of the proteome, fractionation techniques may be required to optimize the detection of low-abundance proteins, which are often under-represented, but which may represent important players in health and disease. Such subcellular fractionation protocols typically utilize density-gradient centrifugation and have enabled the enrichment of crude microsomes, the cytosol, the plasmalemma, the nuclei, and the mitochondria. In this chapter, we describe the experimental steps involved in the enrichment of crude microsomes from skeletal muscle using differential centrifugation and subsequent verification of enrichment by gel electrophoresis and immunoblotting, prior to comparative DIGE analysis.

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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 25%
Researcher 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 50%
Neuroscience 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
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 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,449,496
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#9,941
of 13,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#378,076
of 442,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#1,193
of 1,498 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,159 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 442,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,498 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.