↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Proteomics

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Clinical Proteomics'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Biological Sample Collection for Clinical Proteomics: Existing SOPs.
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Targeting the proteome of cellular fractions: focus on secreted proteins.
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 Preparation of urinary exosomes: methodological issues for clinical proteomics.
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 Sample treatment methods involving combinatorial Peptide ligand libraries for improved proteomes analyses.
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Glycoprotein Enrichment Method Using a Selective Magnetic Nano-Probe Platform (MNP) Functionalized with Lectins.
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 The Latest Advancements in Proteomic Two-dimensional Gel Electrophoresis Analysis Applied to Biological Samples.
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 2DE Maps in the Discovery of Human Autoimmune Kidney Diseases: The Case of Membranous Glomerulonephritis.
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 MALDI-Imaging Mass Spectrometry on Tissues.
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Laser Capture Microdissection of Fluorescently Labeled Amyloid Plaques from Alzheimer’s Disease Brain Tissue for Mass Spectrometric Analysis
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Urine Sample Preparation and Fractionation for Global Proteome Profiling by LC-MS.
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Methods in capillary electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry for the identification of clinical proteomic/peptidomic biomarkers in biofluids.
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Quantification of proteins in urine samples using targeted mass spectrometry methods.
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Statistical issues in the design and planning of proteomic profiling experiments.
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Integrating Proteomics Profiling Data Sets: A Network Perspective
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 The European medicines agency experience with biomarker qualification.
Attention for Chapter 4: Sample treatment methods involving combinatorial Peptide ligand libraries for improved proteomes analyses.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Sample treatment methods involving combinatorial Peptide ligand libraries for improved proteomes analyses.
Chapter number 4
Book title
Clinical Proteomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-1872-0_4
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-1871-3, 978-1-4939-1872-0
Authors

Pier Giorgio Righetti, Egisto Boschetti, Righetti, Pier Giorgio, Boschetti, Egisto

Editors

Antonia Vlahou, Manousos Makridakis

Abstract

If used in an optimized manner, the technology of combinatorial peptide solid-phase libraries can easily improve the analytical determinations of proteomes by several factors. The discovery of novel species and of early stage biomarkers becomes thus reachable with a simple sample treatment. This report describes the most important point to consider (overloading and full recovery) along with a minimum scientific background and gives then detailed recipes to laboratory technicians. Orientations for optional routes are also given according to the objective of the experimental investigations. This covers different approaches to capture proteins of very low abundance. Total protein harvestings to prevent partial losses are also described such as single exhaustive desorption and fractionated elutions for more detailed analyses. Documented results are also reported demonstrating the capability of the technology well beyond what is the common assumption.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Other 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 17%
Unknown 3 50%
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 02 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,731,702
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,189
of 13,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,124
of 258,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#47
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,090 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 258,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.