Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15176464›Full record

ReviewNeurochemical research2004

Proteomics for protein expression profiling in neuroscience.

Willard M Freeman, Scott E Hemby

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurochemical research, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Loss of CaFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Role of SM22 in the differential regulation of phasic vs. tonic smooth muscle.American journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Willard M FreemanDepartment of Pharmacology, Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Neuroscience Division, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, USA.
Scott E Hemby

Funding

Molecular Fingerprint of Cocaine Abuse AnalysisR01DA013772 · NIDA · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI HEMBY, SCOTT EDWARDS · 2001 to 2003
$1.1M
Gene expression and monoamine transporter reversal.F32DA015945 · NIDA · OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI FREEMAN, WILLARD M · 2002 to 2003
$95k
NIDA NIH HHS F32 DA015945NIDA NIH HHS F32DA015945NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA013772NIDA NIH HHS R01DA013772
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the technology of proteomics moves from a theoretical approach to a practical reality, neuroscientists will have to determine the most appropriate applications for this technology. Neuroscientists will have to surmount difficulties particular to their research, such as limited sample amounts, heterogeneous cellular compositions in samples, and the fact that many proteins of interest are rare, hydrophobic proteins. This review examines protein isolation and protein fractionation and separation using two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) and mass spectrometry proteomic methods. Methods for quantifying relative protein expression between samples (e.g., 2-DIGE, and ICAT) are also described. The coverage of the proteome, ability to detect membrane proteins, resource requirements, and quantitative reliability of different approaches is also discussed. Although there are many challenges in proteomic neuroscience, this field promises many rewards in the future.

Indexed as

AnimalsGene Expression ProfilingGenetic TechniquesHumansPeptide MappingProteinsProteomicsProteins

Identifiers

PMID15176464
PMCPMC3843356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.