ArticleProteomics2015
MRM as a discovery tool?
Article in Proteomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple-reaction monitoring (MRM) of peptides has been recognized as a promising technology because it is sensitive and robust. Borrowed from stable-isotope dilution (SID) methodologies in the field of small molecules, MRM is now routinely used in proteomics laboratories. While its usefulness validating candidate targets is widely accepted, it has not been established as a discovery tool. Traditional thinking has been that MRM workflows cannot be multiplexed high enough to efficiently profile. This is due to slower instrument scan rates and the complexities of developing increasingly large scheduling methods. In this issue, Colangelo et al. (Proteomics 2015, 15, 1202-1214) describe a pipeline (xMRM) for discovery-style MRM using label-free methods (i.e. relative quantitation). Label-free comes with cost benefits as does MRM, where data are easier to analyze than full-scan. Their paper offers numerous improvements in method design and data analysis. The robustness of their pipeline was tested on rodent postsynaptic density fractions. There, they were able to accurately quantify 112 proteins at a CV% of 11.4, with only 2.5% of the 1697 transitions requiring user intervention. Colangelo et al. aim to extend the reach of MRM deeper into the realm of discovery proteomics, an area that is currently dominated by data-dependent and data-independent workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25762020What 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.