ArticleScientific reports2018
Methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Soil proteogenomics uncover microbial strategies for soil depth-specific carbon cycling under whole-soil warming conditions.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Extraction method shapes soil water-soluble organic matter composition as revealed by absorbance, fluorescence, and parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Systematic evaluation of protein extraction for metaproteomic analysis of marine sediment with high clay content.ISME communications · 2025Article
- Soil Metaproteomics for Microbial Community Profiling: Methodologies and Challenges.Current microbiology · 2024Review
- Extraction of active, contaminant degrading enzymes from soil.Applied soil ecology : a section of Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · 2023Article
- Soil Metaproteomics for the Study of the Relationships Between Microorganisms and Plants: A Review of Extraction Protocols and Ecological Insights.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Proteins play a crucial role in many soil processes, however, standardised methods to extract soluble protein from soil are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of different extractants to quantify the recovery of soluble proteins from three soil types (Cambisol, Ferralsol and Histosol) with contrasting clay and organic matter contents. Known amounts of plant-derived
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.