Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21472601›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2011

Simultaneous quantitation of amino acid mixtures using clustering agents.

Ryan D Leib, Evan R Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ryan D LeibDepartment of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1460, USA.
Evan R Williams
University of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

Protein Conformation and Noncovalent InteractionsR01GM064712 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI WILLIAMS, EVAN R · 2002 to 2009
$2.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM064712NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM064712-08
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A method that uses the abundances of large clusters formed in electrospray ionization to determine the solution-phase molar fractions of amino acids in multi-component mixtures is demonstrated. For solutions containing either four or 10 amino acids, the relative abundances of protonated molecules differed from their solution-phase molar fractions by up to 30-fold and 100-fold, respectively. For the four-component mixtures, the molar fractions determined from the abundances of larger clusters consisting of 19 or more molecules were within 25% of the solution-phase molar fractions, indicating that the abundances and compositions of these clusters reflect the relative concentrations of these amino acids in solution, and that ionization and detection biases are significantly reduced. Lower accuracy was obtained for the 10-component mixtures where values determined from the cluster abundances were typically within a factor of three of their solution molar fractions. The lower accuracy of this method with the more complex mixtures may be due to specific clustering effects owing to the heterogeneity as a result of significantly different physical properties of the components, or it may be the result of lower S/N for the more heterogeneous clusters and not including the low-abundance more highly heterogeneous clusters in this analysis. Although not as accurate as using traditional standards, this clustering method may find applications when suitable standards are not readily available.

Indexed as

Amino AcidsSpectrometry, Mass, Electrospray IonizationAmino Acids

Identifiers

PMID21472601
PMCPMC3062766
OpenAlexW1971734991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.