Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23455922›Full record

ArticleNature methods2013

Interlaboratory reproducibility of large-scale human protein-complex analysis by standardized AP-MS.

Markku Varjosalo, Roberto Sacco, Alexey Stukalov, Audrey van Drogen, Melanie Planyavsky, Simon Hauri, Ruedi Aebersold, Keiryn L Bennett, Jacques Colinge, Matthias Gstaiger and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing 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

119 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Analyzing Protein Interactions by MAC-Tag Approaches.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Markku VarjosaloDepartment of Biology, Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Roberto Sacco
Alexey Stukalov
Audrey van Drogen
Melanie Planyavsky
Simon Hauri
Ruedi Aebersold
Keiryn L Bennett
Jacques Colinge
Matthias Gstaiger
Giulio Superti-Furga

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The characterization of all protein complexes of human cells under defined physiological conditions using affinity purification-mass spectrometry (AP-MS) is a highly desirable step in the quest to understand the phenotypic effects of genomic information. However, such a challenging goal has not yet been achieved, as it requires reproducibility of the experimental workflow and high data consistency across different studies and laboratories. We systematically investigated the reproducibility of a standardized AP-MS workflow by performing a rigorous interlaboratory comparative analysis of the interactomes of 32 human kinases. We show that it is possible to achieve high interlaboratory reproducibility of this standardized workflow despite differences in mass spectrometry configurations and subtle sample preparation-related variations and that combination of independent data sets improves the approach sensitivity, resulting in even more-detailed networks. Our analysis demonstrates the feasibility of obtaining a high-quality map of the human protein interactome with a multilaboratory project.

Indexed as

Cell LineChromatography, AffinityDatabases, FactualHumansIntegrinsLaboratoriesMass SpectrometryMultiprotein ComplexesPhosphotransferasesPhylogenyProtein Interaction MapsReproducibility of ResultsIntegrinsMultiprotein ComplexesPhosphotransferases

Identifiers

PMID23455922

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.