Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26125591›Full record

ArticleNature methods2015

Mass spectrometrists should search only for peptides they care about.

William Stafford Noble

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Journal of proteome research · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. MetaPep: A core peptide database for faster human gut metaproteomics database searches.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author.

William Stafford NobleDepartment of Genome Sciences and the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Funding

TrainingP41GM103533 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI YATES III, JOHN R · 2012 to 2021
$20.7M
Machine learning analysis of tandem mass spectraR01GM096306 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI NOBLE, WILLIAM STAFFORD · 2011 to 2014
$2.5M
Machine learning analysis of tandem mass spectraR01EB007057 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI NOBLE, WILLIAM STAFFORD · 2007 to 2010
$2.4M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB007057NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103533NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM096306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analysis pipelines that assign peptides to shotgun proteomics mass spectra often discard identified spectra deemed irrelevant to the scientific hypothesis being tested. To improve statistical power, I propose that researchers remove irrelevant peptides from the database prior to searching rather than assigning these peptides to spectra and then discarding the matches.

Indexed as

Mass SpectrometryHumansPeptidesPlasmodiumProteomicsPeptides

Identifiers

PMID26125591
PMCPMC4711994

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.