4.1 Article Data Paper

Peptidomics dataset: Blood plasma and serum samples of healthy donors fractionated on a set of chromatography sorbents

Journal

DATA IN BRIEF
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages 1204-1211

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2018.04.018

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Russian Science Foundation [14-50-00131]
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [17-00-00461, 16-04-01414]
  3. Russian Science Foundation [14-50-00131] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Blood as connective tissue potentially contains evidence of all processes occurring within the organism, at least in trace amounts (Petricoin et al., 2006) [1]. Because of their small size, peptides penetrate cell membranes and epithelial barriers more freely than proteins. Among the peptides found in blood, there are both fragments of proteins secreted by various tissues and performing their function in plasma and receptor ligands: hormones, cytokines and mediators of cellular response (Anderson et al., 2002) [2]. In addition, in minor amounts, there are peptide disease markers (for example, oncomarkers) and even foreign peptides related to pathogenic organisms and infection agents. To propose an approach for detailed peptidome characterization, we carried out an LC-MS/MS analysis of blood serum and plasma samples taken from 20 healthy donors on a TripleTOF 5600+ mass-spectrometer. We prepared samples based on our previously developed method of peptide desorption from the surface of abundant blood plasma proteins followed by standard chromatographic steps (Ziganshin et al., 2011) [3]. The mass-spectrometry peptidomics data presented in this article have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium (Deutsch et al., 2017) [4] via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD008141 and 10.6019/PXD008141. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available