ArticleMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP2018
Credentialing Individual Samples for Proteogenomic Analysis.
Article in Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP, 2018. 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.
- Proteo-genomic characterization of virus-associated liver cancers reveals potential subtypes and therapeutic targets.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Characterization of anticancer drug resistance by reverse-phase protein array: new targets and strategies.Expert review of proteomics · 2022Review
- Proteomics advances for precision therapy in ovarian cancer.Expert review of proteomics · 2019Review
- Using Reverse Phase Protein Array (RPPA) to Identify and Target Adaptive Resistance.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2019Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
An integrated analysis of DNA, RNA and protein, so called proteogenomic studies, has the potential to greatly increase our understanding of both normal physiology and disease development. However, such studies are challenged by a lack of a systematic approach to credential individual samples resulting in the introduction of noise into the system that limits the ability to identify important biological signals. Indeed, a recent proteogenomic CPTAC study identified 26% of samples as unsatisfactory, resulting in a marked increase in cost and loss of information content. Based on a large-scale analysis of RNA-seq and proteomic data generated by reverse phase protein arrays (RPPA) and by mass spectrometry, we propose a
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.