ArticleProteomics2008
Science, marketing and wishful thinking in quantitative proteomics.
Article in Proteomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phosphoproteome Analysis Using Two-Dimensional Electrophoresis Coupled with Chemical Dephosphorylation.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Whereabouts of 2D Gels in Quantitative Proteomics.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Global analysis of condition-specific subcellular protein distribution and abundance.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2013Article
- Insights into the virulence of oral biofilms: discoveries from proteomics.Expert review of proteomics · 2012Review
- The pros and cons of peptide-centric proteomics.Nature biotechnology · 2010Article
- Pathway analysis for intracellular Porphyromonas gingivalis using a strain ATCC 33277 specific database.BMC microbiology · 2009Article
- Tools for interpreting large-scale protein profiling in microbiology.Journal of dental research · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
In a recent editorial (J. Proteome Res. 2007, 6, 1633) and elsewhere questions have been raised regarding the lack of attention paid to good analytical practice with respect to the reporting of quantitative results in proteomics. Using those comments as a starting point, several issues are discussed that relate to the challenges involved in achieving adequate sampling with MS-based methods in order to generate valid data for large-scale studies. The discussion touches on the relationships that connect sampling depth and the power to detect protein abundance change, conflict of interest, and strategies to overcome bureaucratic obstacles that impede the use of peer-to-peer technologies for transfer and storage of large data files generated in such experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.