The Spanish team of the Human Proteome Project (SpHPP) marked the annotation of Chr16 and data analysis as one of its priorities. Precise annotation of Chromosome 16 proteins according to C-HPP criteria is presented. Moreover, Human Body Map 2.0 RNA-Seq and Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) data sets were used to obtain further information relative to cell/tissue specific chromosome 16 coding gene expression patterns and to infer the presence of missing proteins. Twenty-four shotgun 2D-LC-MS/MS and gel/LC-MS/MS MIAPE compliant experiments, representing 41% coverage of chromosome 16 proteins, were performed. Furthermore, mapping of large-scale multicenter mass spectrometry data sets from CCD18, MCF7, Jurkat, and Ramos cell lines into RNA-Seq data allowed further insights relative to correlation of chromosome 16 transcripts and proteins. Detection and quantification of chromosome 16 proteins in biological matrices by SRM procedures are also primary goals of the SpHPP. Two strategies were undertaken: one focused on known proteins, taking advantage of MS data already available, and the second, aimed at the detection of the missing proteins, is based on the expression of recombinant proteins to gather MS information and optimize SRM methods that will be used in real biological samples. SRM methods for 49 known proteins and for recombinant forms of 24 missing proteins are reported in this study.

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, in terms of trueness and precision, of printed models using five different industrial and dental desktop 3D printers. Materials and methods Full-arch digital models with scanbodies of 15 patients were printed with five different 3D printers. The industrial printers were 3D system Project MJP2500 (3DS) and Objet30 OrthoDesk (Obj). The dental desktop printers were NextDent 5100 (ND), Formlabs Form 2 (FL) and Rapidshape D30 (RS). A total of 225 printed models were analysed. The printed models were digitized and compared with the reference cast model using the Control X software (Geomagic). The descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA with the post hoc Tukey test were performed (α = 0.05). Results The one-way ANOVA for the trueness and precision of the printed model presented the best results for the 3DS, followed by ND, Obj, FL and RS (P < 0.01). In the scanbody zone, the best results were for the 3DS group, followed by Obj, ND, FL and RS (P < 0.01). Comparing the technologies, the Multijet technology used in industrial printers presented better results than the DLP and SLA technologies used in dental desktop printers (P > 0.01). Conclusions There were statistically significant differences in terms of the accuracy of the printed models, with better results for the industrial than the dental desktop 3D printers. Clinical relevance The industrial 3D printers used in dental laboratories presented better accuracy than the in-office dental desktop 3D printers, and this should be considered when the best accuracy is needed to perform final prosthetic restorations.

No abstract

No abstract