ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2014
False-positive rate determination of protein target discovery using a covalent modification- and mass spectrometry-based proteomics platform.
Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Knowns and Unknowns in Protein-Metabolite Interactions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Chemo-Selection Strategy for Limited Proteolysis Experiments on the Proteomic Scale.Analytical chemistry · 2018Article
- Natural Products for Drug Discovery in the 21st Century: Innovations for Novel Drug Discovery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
- Thermodynamic Analysis of the Geldanamycin-Hsp90 Interaction in a Whole Cell Lysate Using a Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics Approach.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2016Article
- Discovery of Manassantin A Protein Targets Using Large-Scale Protein Folding and Stability Measurements.Journal of proteome research · 2016Article
- SILAC-pulse proteolysis: A mass spectrometry-based method for discovery and cross-validation in proteome-wide studies of ligand binding.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Detection and quantitation of protein-ligand binding interactions is important in many areas of biological research. Stability of proteins from rates of oxidation (SPROX) is an energetics-based technique for identifying the proteins targets of ligands in complex biological mixtures. Knowing the false-positive rate of protein target discovery in proteome-wide SPROX experiments is important for the correct interpretation of results. Reported here are the results of a control SPROX experiment in which chemical denaturation data is obtained on the proteins in two samples that originated from the same yeast lysate, as would be done in a typical SPROX experiment except that one sample would be spiked with the test ligand. False-positive rates of 1.2-2.2% and <0.8% are calculated for SPROX experiments using Q-TOF and Orbitrap mass spectrometer systems, respectively. Our results indicate that the false-positive rate is largely determined by random errors associated with the mass spectral analysis of the isobaric mass tag (e.g., iTRAQ®) reporter ions used for peptide quantitation. Our results also suggest that technical replicates can be used to effectively eliminate such false positives that result from this random error, as is demonstrated in a SPROX experiment to identify yeast protein targets of the drug, manassantin A. The impact of ion purity in the tandem mass spectral analyses and of background oxidation on the false-positive rate of protein target discovery using SPROX is also discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.