Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28248255›Full record

ReviewProteomes2017

Isoelectric Point Separations of Peptides and Proteins.

Melissa R Pergande, Stephanie M Cologna

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proteomes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Peptide Hormone-Mediated Regulation of Plant Development and Environmental Adaptability.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  3. Regulatory Guidelines for the Analysis of Therapeutic Peptides and Proteins.Journal of peptide science : an official publication of the European Peptide Society · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Traumatic Brain Injury Biomarkers, Simulations and Kinetics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Melissa R PergandeDepartment of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA. mperga2@uic.edu.
Stephanie M ColognaDepartment of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA. cologna@uic.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The separation of ampholytic components according to isoelectric point has played an important role in isolating, reducing complexity and improving peptide and protein detection. This brief review outlines the basics of isoelectric focusing, including a summary of the historical achievements and considerations in experimental design. Derivative methodologies of isoelectric focusing are also discussed including common detection methods used. Applications in a variety of fields using isoelectric point based separations are provided as well as an outlook on the field for future studies.

Indexed as

capillary isoelectric focusingelectrophoresisisoelectric focusingisoelectric trappingproteomicstwo-dimensional gel electrophoresis

Identifiers

PMID28248255
PMCPMC5372225

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.