Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23071097›Full record

ReviewMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP2013

Popular computational methods to assess multiprotein complexes derived from label-free affinity purification and mass spectrometry (AP-MS) experiments.

Irina M Armean, Kathryn S Lilley, Matthew W B Trotter

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Affinity Proteomic Analysis of the Human Exosome and Its Cofactor Complexes.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2020
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Protein Complex Affinity Capture from Cryomilled Mammalian Cells.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2016
    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

3 authors.

Irina M ArmeanCambridge Centre for Proteomics, Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, CB2 1GA, UK.
Kathryn S Lilley
Matthew W B Trotter

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F017464/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in sensitivity, resolution, mass accuracy, and throughput have considerably increased the number of protein identifications made via mass spectrometry. Despite these advances, state-of-the-art experimental methods for the study of protein-protein interactions yield more candidate interactions than may be expected biologically owing to biases and limitations in the experimental methodology. In silico methods, which distinguish between true and false interactions, have been developed and applied successfully to reduce the number of false positive results yielded by physical interaction assays. Such methods may be grouped according to: (1) the type of data used: methods based on experiment-specific measurements (e.g., spectral counts or identification scores) versus methods that extract knowledge encoded in external annotations (e.g., public interaction and functional categorisation databases); (2) the type of algorithm applied: the statistical description and estimation of physical protein properties versus predictive supervised machine learning or text-mining algorithms; (3) the type of protein relation evaluated: direct (binary) interaction of two proteins in a cocomplex versus probability of any functional relationship between two proteins (e.g., co-occurrence in a pathway, sub cellular compartment); and (4) initial motivation: elucidation of experimental data by evaluation versus prediction of novel protein-protein interaction, to be experimentally validated a posteriori. This work reviews several popular computational scoring methods and software platforms for protein-protein interactions evaluation according to their methodology, comparative strengths and weaknesses, data representation, accessibility, and availability. The scoring methods and platforms described include: CompPASS, SAINT, Decontaminator, MINT, IntAct, STRING, and FunCoup. References to related work are provided throughout in order to provide a concise but thorough introduction to a rapidly growing interdisciplinary field of investigation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsBacteriaChromatography, AffinityComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinHumansMass SpectrometryMethionineMultiprotein ComplexesProtein Interaction MappingSaccharomyces cerevisiaeMethionineMultiprotein Complexes

Identifiers

PMID23071097
PMCPMC3536891

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.