Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28118949›Full record

ReviewTrends in biochemical sciences2017

A Golden Age for Working with Public Proteomics Data.

Lennart Martens, Juan Antonio Vizcaíno

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in biochemical sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluation of Eukaryotic mRNA Coding Potential.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Databases and Tools to Investigate Protein-Metabolite Interactions.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  20. 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.

Lennart MartensMedical Biotechnology Center, VIB, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Biochemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Bioinformatics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: lennart.martens@vib-ugent.be.
Juan Antonio VizcaínoEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SD, UK. Electronic address: juan@ebi.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data sharing in mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics is becoming a common scientific practice, as is now common in the case of other, more mature 'omics' disciplines like genomics and transcriptomics. We want to highlight that this situation, unprecedented in the field, opens a plethora of opportunities for data scientists. First, we explain in some detail some of the work already achieved, such as systematic reanalysis efforts. We also explain existing applications of public proteomics data, such as proteogenomics and the creation of spectral libraries and spectral archives. Finally, we discuss the main existing challenges and mention the first attempts to combine public proteomics data with other types of omics data sets.

Indexed as

Databases, ProteinProteomicsHumansMass Spectrometry

Identifiers

PMID28118949
PMCPMC5414595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.