ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2016
Phage display for identification of serum biomarkers of traumatic brain injury.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Uncovering temporospatial sensitive TBI targeting strategies via in vivo phage display.Science advances · 2022Article
- A mimetic peptide of α2,6-sialyllactose promotes neuritogenesis.Neural regeneration research · 2020Article
- Identification and characterization of synthetic chondroitin-4-sulfate binding peptides in neuronal functions.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Current trends in biomarker discovery and analysis tools for traumatic brain injury.Journal of biological engineering · 2019Review
- Phage-Enabled Nanomedicine: From Probes to Therapeutics in Precision Medicine.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe extent and severity of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) can be difficult to determine with current diagnostic methods. To address this, there has been increased interest in developing biomarkers to assist in the diagnosis, determination of injury severity, evaluation of recovery and therapeutic efficacy, and prediction of outcomes. Several promising serum TBI biomarkers have been identified using hypothesis-driven approaches, largely examining proteins that are abundant in neurons and non-neural cells in the CNS. NEW
methodAn unbiased approach, phage display, was used to identify serum TBI biomarkers. In this proof-of-concept study, mice received a TBI using the controlled cortical impact model of TBI (1mm injury depth, 3.5m/s velocity) and phage display was utilized to identify putative serum biomarkers at 6h postinjury.
resultsAn engineered phage which preferentially bound to injured serum was sequenced to identify the 12-mer 'recognizer' peptide expressed on the coat protein. Following synthesis of the recognizer peptide, pull down, and mass spectrometry analysis, the target protein was identified as glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS AND
conclusionsGFAP has previously been identified as a promising TBI biomarker. The results provide proof of concept regarding the ability of phage display to identify TBI serum biomarkers. This methodology is currently being applied to serum biomarkers of mild TBI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.