Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25762020›Full record

ArticleProteomics2015

MRM as a discovery tool?

Paul A Rudnick

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Paul A RudnickSpectragen Informatics, Rockville, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsNerve Tissue ProteinsProteomeSynapsesNerve Tissue ProteinsProteomeBioinformaticsData processingMRM/SRMTechnology

Identifiers

PMID25762020

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.