2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.copbio.2016.04.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Protein-SIP in environmental studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
64
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
64
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Sowohl Markierungsverhältnis als auch RIA können sehr exakt bestimmt werden, wobei RIAs in einfachen Systemen bis zu einem Wert von 1 % ausreichend sind, in komplexeren jedoch 10 % für eine Erkennung nötig sind. Dabei finden Isotope wie 2 H, 13 C, 15 N, 18 O, 34 S oder 36 S Anwendung [43].…”
Section: Protein Stabile-isotop-probing (Protein-sip)unclassified
“…Sowohl Markierungsverhältnis als auch RIA können sehr exakt bestimmt werden, wobei RIAs in einfachen Systemen bis zu einem Wert von 1 % ausreichend sind, in komplexeren jedoch 10 % für eine Erkennung nötig sind. Dabei finden Isotope wie 2 H, 13 C, 15 N, 18 O, 34 S oder 36 S Anwendung [43].…”
Section: Protein Stabile-isotop-probing (Protein-sip)unclassified
“…Protein-based stable isotope probing (protein-SIP) is a well-established technique to study dynamic changes in a proteome [11]. When using protein-SIP in animals, the latter are fed food enriched with stable isotopes and their incorporation into proteins are then measured by mass spectrometry.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here we report a metaproteomic workflow that involved protein-SIP, identification, and quantification of partially labeled peptides, followed by computational analysis. Briefly, five [11][12] week old mice were fed 15 N labeled hydrolysate from Ralstonia eutropha as mouse chow for 43 days. Stool samples from these mice were collected over 10 time points and their microbiome was analyzed by metaproteomics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The above quantitative identity‐function methods add a great deal to the methodological tool box in microbial ecology, however, they also have certain limitations. Compared with nucleic‐acid based methods, protein‐SIP and PLFA‐SIP are limited in phylogenetic resolution; labelled peptides or labelled PLFAs can often only be assigned to bacterial families or orders (Jehmlich et al ., ) or are biomarkers for broad groups of microorganisms (Gutierrez‐Zamora and Manefield, ), respectively. For probe‐based methods, even including Chip‐SIP where multiple probes are deployed in parallel, a concern is that taxa coverage is dependent on selection of probes and therefore analysis might miss activity in unexpected taxa (Mayali et al ., ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%