Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26307175›Full record

ReviewMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP2016

Proteomics of the Synapse--A Quantitative Approach to Neuronal Plasticity.

Daniela C Dieterich, Michael R Kreutz

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Proteomic insights into the biology of dopaminergic neurons.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Differential regulation of local mRNA dynamics and translation following long-term potentiation and depression.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. CaCells · 2020
    Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniela C DieterichFrom the ‡Institute for Pharmacology and Toxicology, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany; Research Group Neuralomics, Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology Magdeburg, Germany; ¶Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences (CBBS), Magdeburg, Germany. kreutz@lin-magdeburg.de daniela.dieterich@med.ovgu.de.
Michael R Kreutz§RG Neuroplasticity, Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, Magdeburg, Germany; ¶Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences (CBBS), Magdeburg, Germany. kreutz@lin-magdeburg.de daniela.dieterich@med.ovgu.de.
Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advances in mass spectrometry based proteomics in the past 15 years have contributed to a deeper appreciation of protein networks and the composition of functional synaptic protein complexes. However, research on protein dynamics underlying core mechanisms of synaptic plasticity in brain lag far behind. In this review, we provide a synopsis on proteomic research addressing various aspects of synaptic function. We discuss the major topics in the study of protein dynamics of the chemical synapse and the limitations of current methodology. We highlight recent developments and the future importance of multidimensional proteomics and metabolic labeling. Finally, emphasis is given on the conceptual framework of modern proteomics and its current shortcomings in the quest to gain a deeper understanding of synaptic plasticity.

Indexed as

BrainHumansMass SpectrometryNeuronal PlasticityProteinsProteomicsSynapsesProteins

Identifiers

PMID26307175
PMCPMC4739661
OpenAlexW2162248797

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.