What is the Advantage and Disadvantage of Sodium Deoxycholate

Evaluation of the Combinative Application of SDS and Sodium Deoxycholate

SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate) and sodium deoxycholate (SDC) are two prominent detergents frequently utilized in LC-MS/MS-based shotgun analysis of membrane proteomes. Despite their extensive usage, inherent limitations such as interference with MS analysis and a weaker ability to disrupt membranes have restricted their broader applications. To counter these drawbacks, our study has developed and evaluated a combinative application of SDS and SDC. This approach leverages the strong membrane-lysing and solubilizing ability of SDS for hydrophobic membrane proteins, along with the high efficiency of an optimized acetone precipitation method and SDC in sample clean-up, protein recovery, and redissolution and digestion of precipitated proteins. A comparative study using a rat-liver-membrane-enriched sample demonstrated that our combinative method not only increased the identification of total proteins, membrane proteins, and integral membrane proteins by an average of 19.8%, 23.9%, and 24.8% respectively, compared to three commonly used methods including the filter-aided sample preparation strategy, but also identified the highest number of matching peptides.

View Details

chenlv supply professional and honest service.

For more Sodium Deoxycholate information, please contact us. We will provide professional answers.

Amphotericin B Deoxycholate Versus Liposomal Formulation: Bias Assessment

Selection bias due to inadequate randomised sequence generation: Low risk of bias: Methods like random number table, computer-based randomisation, coin tossing, or shuffling. High risk of bias: Methods based on date of birth, admission date, or sequence generated by hospital record number, clinician judgement, or participant preference. Unclear: Insufficient details about the random sequence generation process.

Selection bias due to inadequate concealment of allocations: Low risk: Methods like central allocation or sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. High risk: Open random allocation schedule or unsealed/non-opaque/unsequentially numbered envelopes. Unclear: Randomisation mentioned but without detailed method.

Performance bias due to unblinded participants and personnel: Low risk: Blinding ensured or outcome unlikely influenced by lack of blinding. High risk: Unblinded participants and personnel likely influencing the outcome. Unclear: Insufficient information.

Detection bias due to unblinded outcome assessors: Low risk: Outcome unlikely influenced by lack of blinding. High risk: Unblinded outcome assessment likely influencing the outcome. Unclear: Insufficient information.

Attrition bias due to missing outcome data: Low risk: Complete data or balance in missing data across groups. High risk: Imbalanced or substantial missing data. Unclear: Insufficient information.

Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting: Low risk: All expected outcomes reported. High risk: Important outcomes not pre-specified or incompletely reported. Unclear: Insufficient information.

Bias due to other problems: Low risk: Free of identified other biases. High risk: Potential study design-related bias or early stopping. Unclear: Insufficient information to assess potential bias.