Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28569762›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2017

Quantitative proteomics: challenges and opportunities in basic and applied research.

Olga T Schubert, Hannes L Röst, Ben C Collins, George Rosenberger, Ruedi Aebersold

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

139 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Opsonization Improves Dual Proteomic Analysis ofJournal of proteome research · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Proteomic and Secretomic Response of an AfricanJournal of proteome research · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Pulse SILAC Approaches to the Measurement of Cellular Dynamics.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

79 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Olga T SchubertDepartment of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Hannes L RöstDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Ben C CollinsDepartment of Biology, Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
George RosenbergerDepartment of Biology, Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ruedi AebersoldDepartment of Biology, Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this Perspective, we discuss developments in mass-spectrometry-based proteomic technology over the past decade from the viewpoint of our laboratory. We also reflect on existing challenges and limitations, and explore the current and future roles of quantitative proteomics in molecular systems biology, clinical research and personalized medicine.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesHumansMass SpectrometryProteomicsSystems Biology

Identifiers

PMID28569762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.