Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27123991›Full record

ArticleBioconjugate chemistry2016

Reactivity, Selectivity, and Stability in Sulfenic Acid Detection: A Comparative Study of Nucleophilic and Electrophilic Probes.

Vinayak Gupta, Hanumantharao Paritala, Kate S Carroll

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Bioconjugate chemistry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Dual-ReactivityJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Mass Spectrometry in Advancement of Redox Precision Medicine.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2019
    Review
  14. The relationships between cytochromes P450 and HJournal of inorganic biochemistry · 2018
    Review
  15. Review
  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

3 authors.

Vinayak GuptaDepartment of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute , Jupiter, Florida 33458, United States.
Hanumantharao ParitalaDepartment of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute , Jupiter, Florida 33458, United States.
Kate S CarrollDepartment of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute , Jupiter, Florida 33458, United States.

Funding

Probing the role of cysteine sulfenylation in cell signalingR01GM102187 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Kate Suzanne Carroll · 2012 to 2026
$4.6M
Nucleophilic Inhibitors for Targeting Redox-Sensitive KinasesR01CA174864 · NCI · SCRIPPS FLORIDA · PI CARROLL, KATE SUZANNE · 2014 to 2017
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA174864NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM102187
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The comparative reaction efficiencies of currently used nucleophilic and electrophilic probes toward cysteine sulfenic acid have been thoroughly evaluated in two different settings-(i) a small molecule dipeptide based model and (ii) a recombinant protein model. We further evaluated the stability of corresponding thioether and sulfoxide adducts under reducing conditions which are commonly encountered during proteomic protocols and in cell analysis. Powered by the development of new cyclic and linear C-nucleophiles, the unsurpassed efficiency in the capture of sulfenic acid under competitive conditions is achieved and thus holds great promise as highly potent tools for activity-based sulfenome profiling.

Indexed as

Electron TransportModels, MolecularProtein ConformationSulfenic AcidsSulfenic Acids

Identifiers

PMID27123991
PMCPMC4886738

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.