Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23382104›Full record

ReviewMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP2013

The impact of biosampling procedures on molecular data interpretation.

Karl Sköld, Henrik Alm, Birger Scholz

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. qPCR based mRNA quality score show intact mRNA after heat stabilization.Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Grading breast cancer tissues using molecular portraits.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2013
    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.

Karl SköldDenator AB, Uppsala Science Park, SE-75183 Uppsala, Sweden.
Henrik Alm
Birger Scholz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The separation between biological and technical variation without extensive use of technical replicates is often challenging, particularly in the context of different forms of protein and peptide modifications. Biosampling procedures in the research laboratory are easier to conduct within a shorter time frame and under controlled conditions as compared with clinical sampling, with the latter often having issues of reproducibility. But is the research laboratory biosampling really less variable? Biosampling introduces within minutes rapid tissue-specific changes in the cellular microenvironment, thus inducing a range of different pathways associated with cell survival. Biosampling involves hypoxia and, depending on the circumstances, hypothermia, circumstances for which there are evolutionarily conserved defense strategies in the range of species and also are relevant for the range of biomedical conditions. It remains unclear to what extent such adaptive processes are reflected in different biosampling procedures or how important they are for the definition of sample quality. Lately, an increasing number of comparative studies on different biosampling approaches, post-mortem effects and pre-sampling biological state, have investigated such immediate early biosampling effects. Commonalities between biosampling effects and a range of ischemia/reperfusion- and hypometabolism/anoxia-associated biological phenomena indicate that even small variations in post-sampling time intervals are likely to introduce a set of nonrandom and tissue-specific effects of experimental importance (both in vivo and in vitro). This review integrates the information provided by these comparative studies and discusses how an adaptive biological perspective in biosampling procedures may be relevant for sample quality issues.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsCellular MicroenvironmentGene Expression RegulationHumansHypothermiaHypoxiaObserver VariationOrgan SpecificityProteinsProteomicsReproducibility of ResultsSpecies SpecificitySpecimen HandlingTime FactorsProteins

Identifiers

PMID23382104
PMCPMC3675808

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.