Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30837968›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2019

More Is Not Always Better: Evaluation of 1D and 2D-LC-MS/MS Methods for Metaproteomics.

Tjorven Hinzke, Angela Kouris, Rebecca-Ayme Hughes, Marc Strous, Manuel Kleiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Enterococcal quorum-controlled protease alters phage infection.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Considerations for constructing a protein sequence database for metaproteomics.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Omics-Driven Biotechnology for Industrial Applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Tjorven HinzkeDepartment of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Angela KourisDepartment of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Rebecca-Ayme HughesDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.
Marc StrousDepartment of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Manuel KleinerDepartment of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metaproteomics, the study of protein expression in microbial communities, is a versatile tool for environmental microbiology. Achieving sufficiently high metaproteome coverage to obtain a comprehensive picture of the activities and interactions in microbial communities is one of the current challenges in metaproteomics. An essential step to maximize the number of identified proteins is peptide separation via liquid chromatography (LC) prior to mass spectrometry (MS). Thorough optimization and comparison of LC methods for metaproteomics are, however, currently lacking. Here, we present an extensive development and test of different 1D and 2D-LC approaches for metaproteomic peptide separations. We used fully characterized mock community samples to evaluate metaproteomic approaches with very long analytical columns (50 and 75 cm) and long gradients (up to 12 h). We assessed a total of over 20 different 1D and 2D-LC approaches in terms of number of protein groups and unique peptides identified, peptide spectrum matches (PSMs) generated, the ability to detect proteins of low-abundance species, the effect of technical replicate runs on protein identifications and method reproducibility. We show here that, while 1D-LC approaches are faster and easier to set up and lead to more identifications per minute of runtime, 2D-LC approaches allow for a higher overall number of identifications with up to >10,000 protein groups identified. We also compared the 1D and 2D-LC approaches to a standard GeLC workflow, in which proteins are pre-fractionated via gel electrophoresis. This method yielded results comparable to the 2D-LC approaches, however with the drawback of a much increased sample preparation time. Based on our results, we provide recommendations on how to choose the best LC approach for metaproteomics experiments, depending on the study aims.

Indexed as

GeLCliquid chromatographymethod evaluationmicrobial ecologymicrobiomemicrobiotamock communityQ Exactive

Identifiers

PMID30837968
PMCPMC6383543

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.