Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25667941›Full record

ReviewMass spectrometry reviews

Lessons in de novo peptide sequencing by tandem mass spectrometry.

Katalin F Medzihradszky, Robert J Chalkley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mass spectrometry reviews. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing 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

80 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Mass Spectrometric De Novo Sequencing of Natural Peptides.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  20. Origins, Technological Advancement, and Applications of Peptidomics.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article

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

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

2 authors.

Katalin F Medzihradszky
Robert J Chalkley

Funding

Bio-Organic Biomedical Mass Spectromy ResourceP41GM103481 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BURLINGAME, ALMA L · 2012 to 2015
$6.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS 8P41GM103481NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103481
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mass spectrometry has become the method of choice for the qualitative and quantitative characterization of protein mixtures isolated from all kinds of living organisms. The raw data in these studies are MS/MS spectra, usually of peptides produced by proteolytic digestion of a protein. These spectra are "translated" into peptide sequences, normally with the help of various search engines. Data acquisition and interpretation have both been automated, and most researchers look only at the summary of the identifications without ever viewing the underlying raw data used for assignments. Automated analysis of data is essential due to the volume produced. However, being familiar with the finer intricacies of peptide fragmentation processes, and experiencing the difficulties of manual data interpretation allow a researcher to be able to more critically evaluate key results, particularly because there are many known rules of peptide fragmentation that are not incorporated into search engine scoring. Since the most commonly used MS/MS activation method is collision-induced dissociation (CID), in this article we present a brief review of the history of peptide CID analysis. Next, we provide a detailed tutorial on how to determine peptide sequences from CID data. Although the focus of the tutorial is de novo sequencing, the lessons learned and resources supplied are useful for data interpretation in general.

Indexed as

SoftwareAmino Acid SequencePeptide FragmentsPeptidesSequence Analysis, ProteinTandem Mass SpectrometryPeptide FragmentsPeptides

Identifiers

PMID25667941
PMCPMC4367481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.