Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22317846›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology2012

Proteomic analysis of stem cell differentiation and early development.

Dennis van Hoof, Jeroen Krijgsveld, Christine Mummery

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. New Challenges for Anatomists in the Era of Omics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Metabolomics Analysis of Mesenchymal Stem Cells.International journal of molecular and cellular medicine · 2019
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dennis van HoofDepartment of Anatomy and Embryology, Leiden University Medical Center, ZC Leiden.
Jeroen Krijgsveld
Christine Mummery
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomics methodologies have advanced to the extent that it is now possible to interrogate the gene expression in a single cell but proteomics has traditionally lagged behind and required much greater cellular input and was not quantitative. Coupling protein with gene expression data is essential for understanding how cell behavior is regulated. Advances primarily in mass spectrometry have, however, greatly improved the sensitivity of proteomics methods over the last decade and the outcome of proteomic analyses can now also be quantified. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to obtain sufficient tissue from staged mammalian embryos to combine proteomic and genomic analyses. Recent developments in pluripotent stem cell biology have in part addressed this issue by providing surrogate scalable cell systems in which early developmental events can be modeled. Here we present an overview of current proteomics methodologies and the kind of information this can provide on the biology of human and mouse pluripotent stem cells.

Indexed as

Cell DifferentiationAnimalsCell MembraneEmbryonic Stem CellsHumansMass SpectrometryMicePhosphorylationPluripotent Stem CellsProtein Interaction MapsProteinsProteomicsProteins

Identifiers

PMID22317846
PMCPMC3282409
OpenAlexW2115649703

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.