Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30047222›Full record

ArticleJournal of separation science2018

Visualization and application of amino acid retention coefficients obtained from modeling of peptide retention.

Yassene Mohammed, Magnus Palmblad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of separation science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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.

Yassene MohammedCenter for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3265-3332
Magnus PalmbladCenter for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5865-8994

Funding

NWO 917.11.398
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We introduce a method for data inspection in liquid separations of peptides using amino acid retention coefficients and their relative change across experiments. Our method allows for the direct comparison between actual experimental conditions, regardless of sample content and without the use of internal standards. The modeling uses linear regression of peptide retention time as a function of amino acid composition. We demonstrate the pH dependency of the model in a control experiment where the pH of the mobile phase was changed in controlled way. We introduce a score to identify the false discovery rate on peptide spectrum match level that corresponds to the set of most robust models, i.e. to maximize the shared agreement between experiments. We demonstrate the method utility in reversed-phase liquid chromatography using 24 datasets with minimal peptide overlap. We apply our method on datasets obtained from a public repository representing various separation designs, including one-dimensional reversed-phase liquid chromatography followed by tandem mass spectrometry, and two-dimensional online strong cation exchange coupled to reversed-phase liquid chromatography followed by tandem mass spectrometry, and highlight new insights. Our method provides a simple yet powerful way to inspect data quality, in particular for multidimensional separations, improving comparability of data at no additional experimental cost.

Indexed as

Amino AcidsChromatography, High Pressure LiquidChromatography, Reverse-PhaseEscherichia coliHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationLinear ModelsPeptidesTandem Mass SpectrometryAmino AcidsPeptidesmass spectrometryone-dimensional separationproteomicsretention time modelingtwo-dimensional separation

Identifiers

PMID30047222
PMCPMC6175132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.