↓ 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 22: KiC Assay: A Quantitative Mass Spectrometry-Based Approach.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
KiC Assay: A Quantitative Mass Spectrometry-Based Approach.
Chapter number 22
Book title
Quantitative Methods in Proteomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/978-1-61779-885-6_22
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-61779-884-9, 978-1-61779-885-6
Authors

Yadong Huang, Jay J. Thelen

Abstract

Protein phosphorylation is one of the most important posttranslational modifications (PTMs) involved in the transduction of cellular signals. The number of kinases in eukaryotic genomes ranges from several hundred to over one thousand. And with rapidly evolving mass spectrometry (MS)-based approaches, thousands to tens of thousands of phosphorylation sites (phosphosites) have been reported from various eukaryotic organisms, from man to plants. In this relative context, few bona fide kinase-client relationships have been identified to date. To merge the gap between these phosphosites and the cognate kinases that beget these events, comparable large-scale methodologies are required. We describe in detail a MS-based method for identifying kinase-client interactions and quantifying kinase activity. We term this novel Kinase-Client assay, the KiC assay. The KiC assay relies upon the fact that substrate specificities of many kinases are largely determined by primary amino acid sequence or phosphorylation motifs, which consist of key amino acids surrounding the phosphorylation sites. The workflow for detecting kinase-substrate interactions includes four major steps: (1) preparation of purified kinases and synthetic peptide library, (2) in vitro kinase peptide library assay, (3) liquid chromatography (LC)-tandem MS (MS/MS) analysis, and (4) data processing and interpretation. Kinase activity is quantified with the KiC assay by monitoring spectral counts of phosphorylated and unphosphorylated peptides as the readout from LC-tandem mass spectrometry. The KiC assay can be applied as a discovery assay to screen kinases against a synthetic peptide library to find kinase-client relationships or as a targeted assay to characterize kinase kinetics.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 18%
Computer Science 1 9%
Chemistry 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
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 07 June 2012.
All research outputs
#18,308,895
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,828
of 13,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,945
of 244,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#325
of 473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 244,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.