Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20711533›Full record

ArticleMolecular bioSystems2010

The emerging process of Top Down mass spectrometry for protein analysis: biomarkers, protein-therapeutics, and achieving high throughput.

John F Kellie, John C Tran, Ji Eun Lee, Dorothy R Ahlf, Haylee M Thomas, Ioanna Ntai, Adam D Catherman, Kenneth R Durbin, Leonid Zamdborg, Adaikkalam Vellaichamy and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular bioSystems, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Enhanced Dissociation of Intact Proteins with High Capacity Electron Transfer Dissociation.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2016
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Top Down proteomics: facts and perspectives.Biochemical and biophysical research communications · 2014
    Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

12 authors.

John F KellieTechnology Development Team, Center for Top Down Proteomics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
John C Tran
Ji Eun Lee
Dorothy R Ahlf
Haylee M Thomas
Ioanna Ntai
Adam D Catherman
Kenneth R Durbin
Leonid Zamdborg
Adaikkalam Vellaichamy
Paul M Thomas
Neil L Kelleher

Funding

Eukaryotic Post-Translational ModificationsR01GM067193 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI KELLEHER, NEIL L · 2003 to 2015
$4.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM 067193NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM067193
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Top Down mass spectrometry (MS) has emerged as an alternative to common Bottom Up strategies for protein analysis. In the Top Down approach, intact proteins are fragmented directly in the mass spectrometer to achieve both protein identification and characterization, even capturing information on combinatorial post-translational modifications. Just in the past two years, Top Down MS has seen incremental advances in instrumentation and dedicated software, and has also experienced a major boost from refined separations of whole proteins in complex mixtures that have both high recovery and reproducibility. Combined with steadily advancing commercial MS instrumentation and data processing, a high-throughput workflow covering intact proteins and polypeptides up to 70 kDa is directly visible in the near future.

Indexed as

BiomarkersHeLa CellsHumansMass SpectrometryProteinsProteomicsBiomarkersProteins

Identifiers

PMID20711533
PMCPMC3115741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.