Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31308550›Full record

ArticleNature methods2019

EPIC: software toolkit for elution profile-based inference of protein complexes.

Lucas ZhongMing Hu, Florian Goebels, June H Tan, Eric Wolf, Uros Kuzmanov, Cuihong Wan, Sadhna Phanse, Changjiang Xu, Mike Schertzberg, Andrew G Fraser and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Mass spectrometry proteomics for studying mitostasis.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

12 authors.

Lucas ZhongMing HuDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Florian GoebelsDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
June H TanDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6597-3952
Eric WolfDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Uros KuzmanovDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Cuihong WanDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sadhna PhanseDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Changjiang XuDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mike SchertzbergDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Andrew G FraserDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gary D BaderDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. gary.bader@utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0185-8861
Andrew EmiliDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. aemili@bu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8995-246X

Funding

TR&D 3 - Network Guided Machine LearningP41GM103504 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PICO, ALEXANDER R · 2012 to 2024
$17.3M
Enhancing and expanding the CGC Strain CollectionP40OD010440 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Ann E. Rougvie · 2012 to 2026
$7.5M
Cytoscape: A Modeling Platform for Biomolecular NetworksR01GM070743 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI IDEKER, TREY · 2004 to 2016
$5.7M
Cytoscape: A Modeling Platform for Biomolecular NetworksR01HG009979 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI IDEKER, TREY · 2017 to 2021
$3.5M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG009979NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103504NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM070743NIH HHS P40 OD010440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein complexes are key macromolecular machines of the cell, but their description remains incomplete. We and others previously reported an experimental strategy for global characterization of native protein assemblies based on chromatographic fractionation of biological extracts coupled to precision mass spectrometry analysis (chromatographic fractionation-mass spectrometry, CF-MS), but the resulting data are challenging to process and interpret. Here, we describe EPIC (elution profile-based inference of complexes), a software toolkit for automated scoring of large-scale CF-MS data to define high-confidence multi-component macromolecules from diverse biological specimens. As a case study, we used EPIC to map the global interactome of Caenorhabditis elegans, defining 612 putative worm protein complexes linked to diverse biological processes. These included novel subunits and assemblies unique to nematodes that we validated using orthogonal methods. The open source EPIC software is freely available as a Jupyter notebook packaged in a Docker container (https://hub.docker.com/r/baderlab/bio-epic/).

Indexed as

Protein Interaction MappingSoftwareAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansCaenorhabditis elegans ProteinsMultiprotein ComplexesProteomeCaenorhabditis elegans ProteinsMultiprotein ComplexesProteome

Identifiers

PMID31308550
PMCPMC7995176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.