ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016
ECL: an exhaustive search tool for the identification of cross-linked peptides using whole database.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- ECL 3.0: a sensitive peptide identification tool for cross-linking mass spectrometry data analysis.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- The Vaccinia virion: Filling the gap between atomic and ultrastructure.PLoS pathogens · 2019Article
- Identification of MS-Cleavable and Noncleavable Chemically Cross-Linked Peptides with MetaMorpheus.Journal of proteome research · 2018Article
- Cross-Linking Mass Spectrometry: An Emerging Technology for Interactomics and Structural Biology.Analytical chemistry · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChemical cross-linking combined with mass spectrometry (CX-MS) is a high-throughput approach to studying protein-protein interactions. The number of peptide-peptide combinations grows quadratically with respect to the number of proteins, resulting in a high computational complexity. Widely used methods including xQuest (Rinner et al., Nat Methods 5(4):315-8, 2008; Walzthoeni et al., Nat Methods 9(9):901-3, 2012), pLink (Yang et al., Nat Methods 9(9):904-6, 2012), ProteinProspector (Chu et al., Mol Cell Proteomics 9:25-31, 2010; Trnka et al., 13(2):420-34, 2014) and Kojak (Hoopmann et al., J Proteome Res 14(5):2190-198, 2015) avoid searching all peptide-peptide combinations by pre-selecting peptides with heuristic approaches. However, pre-selection procedures may cause missing findings. The most intuitive approach is searching all possible candidates. A tool that can exhaustively search a whole database without any heuristic pre-selection procedure is therefore desirable.
resultsWe have developed a cross-linked peptides identification tool named ECL. It can exhaustively search a whole database in a reasonable period of time without any heuristic pre-selection procedure. Tests showed that searching a database containing 5200 proteins took 7 h. ECL identified more non-redundant cross-linked peptides than xQuest, pLink, and ProteinProspector. Experiments showed that about 30 % of these additional identified peptides were not pre-selected by Kojak. We used protein crystal structures from the protein data bank to check the intra-protein cross-linked peptides. Most of the distances between cross-linking sites were smaller than 30 Å.
conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, ECL is the first tool that can exhaustively search all candidates in cross-linked peptides identification. The experiments showed that ECL could identify more peptides than xQuest, pLink, and ProteinProspector. A further analysis indicated that some of the additional identified results were thanks to the exhaustive search.
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.