Abstract

Recently, so-called label-free quantitative proteomic methods have gained acceptance for protein expression analysis via mass spectrometry (MS). These methods allow better experiment design by circumventing the need to establish pair-wise comparisons required by popular stable isotope dilution methods (for example, isotope coded affinity tag, isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation and stable-isotope labelling by amino acids in cell culture) and are thus fundamentally better suited for proteome studies where sample number is large. Here we discuss the use of shotgun proteomics (that is, no prior protein fractionation) and label-free quantitative methods to characterize human bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) proteomes of six normal healthy volunteers and three patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [1].

Highlights

  • The aim of this study was to elucidate the impact of ICU-acquired infection on ICU and hospital mortality

  • The goal from this study is to evaluate weaning predictor indexes in patients during weaning from mechanical ventilation (MV)

  • This study aims to evaluate the effects of the threshold in such situations

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The aim of this study was to elucidate the impact of ICU-acquired infection on ICU and hospital mortality. Methods A total of 48 community patients (36 men, 11 women, age 50.17 ± 17.974 years, APACHE II score 13.51 ± 6.153) who were expected to stay in the ICU for >5 days were included in this study. Specific examples of feedback are as follows: ‘good update of management plan reinforces need for taking into account concurrent medication when resuscitating patients’, ‘nice simple messages with good starting points for trying to deal with these complicated patients’, ‘useful data on risk of recurrence as this is a question often asked by patients’ This feedback was encouraging as it showed how the primary care professionals planned to change their practice to improve patient outcomes as a result of the learning. The course was considered excellent by 63% of the participants and good by 36%

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call