↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative Methods in Proteomics

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Quantitative Methods in Proteomics'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Important Issues in Planning a Proteomics Experiment: Statistical Considerations of Quantitative Proteomic Data
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 The Whereabouts of 2D Gels in Quantitative Proteomics
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 Proteome Analysis with Classical 2D-PAGE
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 Fast and Sensitive Coomassie Staining in Quantitative Proteomics
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Silver Staining of 2D Electrophoresis Gels
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Differential Proteome Analysis Using 2D-DIGE
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics: an overview.
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 Robust Workflow for iTRAQ-Based Peptide and Protein Quantification
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Relative Protein Quantification by MS/MS Using the Tandem Mass Tag Technology.
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 A Rapid Approach for Isobaric Peptide Termini Labeling
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Isotope-Coded Protein Label
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Hydroponic Isotope Labeling of Entire Plants and High-Performance Mass Spectrometry for Quantitative Plant Proteomics
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 In Vivo Quantitative Proteome Profiling: Planning and Evaluation of SILAC Experiments
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 SILAC for the Study of Mammalian Cell Lines and Yeast Protein Complexes
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 Post-digestion 18O Exchange/Labeling for Quantitative Shotgun Proteomics of Membrane Proteins
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 Application of Label-Free Proteomics for Differential Analysis of Lung Carcinoma Cell Line A549
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Absolute Quantification of Proteins Using Standard Peptides and Multiple Reaction Monitoring
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 18 Quantitative Methods in Proteomics
  20. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 19 A Practical Guide to the FLEXIQuant Method
  21. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 20 Label-Free Protein Quantitation Using Weighted Spectral Counting
  22. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 21 Discovering the Phosphoproteome of the Hydrophobic Cytochrome c Oxidase Membrane Protein Complex
  23. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 22 KiC Assay: A Quantitative Mass Spectrometry-Based Approach.
  24. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 23 Robust and High-Throughput Sample Preparation for (Semi-)Quantitative Analysis of N-Glycosylation Profiles from Plasma Samples
  25. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 24 Quantitative Redox Proteomics: The NOxICAT Method
  26. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 25 Quantitative Analysis of S-Nitrosylated Proteins
  27. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 26 Analysis of Ubiquitinated Proteome by Quantitative Mass Spectrometry
  28. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 27 Identification of Endogenous SUMO1 Accepter Sites by Mass Spectrometry
  29. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 28 Search and Decoy: The Automatic Identification of Mass Spectra
  30. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 29 Software Tools for MS-Based Quantitative Proteomics: A Brief Overview
  31. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 30 iTRAQ Data Interpretation
  32. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 31 MSQuant: A Platform for Stable Isotope-Based Quantitative Proteomics
  33. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 32 Erratum To: KiC Assay: A Quantitative Mass Spectrometry-Based Approach for Kinase Client Screening and Activity Analysis
Attention for Chapter 9: Relative Protein Quantification by MS/MS Using the Tandem Mass Tag Technology.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Relative Protein Quantification by MS/MS Using the Tandem Mass Tag Technology.
Chapter number 9
Book title
Quantitative Methods in Proteomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/978-1-61779-885-6_9
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-61779-884-9, 978-1-61779-885-6
Authors

Loïc Dayon, Jean-Charles Sanchez

Abstract

The determination of protein changes related to stimuli such as pathological conditions is the core task of many proteomic studies. In the past decade, concomitantly to the increasing role of mass spectrometry (MS), several strategies have been implemented for the relative quantification of proteins with MS. Stable isotopic labels are introduced via metabolic, enzymatic, or chemical routes in different samples for their distinction during MS detection. Relative quantification is achieved by comparison of MS or tandem MS (MS/MS) signals of the differentially labeled moieties. Isobaric tagging is an elegant chemical isotope incorporation based on tags with an identical chemical structure and same total mass but with labile parts under collision-activated dissociation, the so-called reporter ions. The reporter ions are characteristic of each tag form and detected at distinct m/z. The TMT, iTRAQ, and ExacTag are examples of such technology. Experimental design, sample preparation and separation, MS acquisition parameters, and data analysis are the key steps to achieve accurate and precise quantitative measurements. We describe herein an isoelectric focusing shotgun proteomics workflow for the relative quantification of proteins in complex mixtures by MS/MS using tandem mass tags.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 94 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 26%
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,195,680
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#5,243
of 13,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,818
of 244,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#262
of 473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,025 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 244,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 473 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.