Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31407381›Full record

ReviewMass spectrometry reviews2019

Recent trends of capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry in proteomics research.

Fabio P Gomes, John R Yates

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mass spectrometry reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Capillary Electrophoresis-Mass Spectrometry for Top-Down Proteomics.Annual review of analytical chemistry (Palo Alto, Calif.) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Top-down proteomics.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Multidimensional Separations in Top-Down Proteomics.Analytical science advances · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Fabio P GomesThe Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, 92037.
John R YatesThe Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, 92037.

Funding

TrainingP41GM103533 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI YATES III, JOHN R · 2012 to 2021
$20.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Progress in proteomics research has led to a demand for powerful analytical tools with high separation efficiency and sensitivity for confident identification and quantification of proteins, posttranslational modifications, and protein complexes expressed in cells and tissues. This demand has significantly increased interest in capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry (CE-MS) in the past few years. This review provides highlights of recent advances in CE-MS for proteomics research, including a short introduction to top-down mass spectrometry and native mass spectrometry (native MS), as well as a detailed overview of CE methods. Both the potential and limitations of these methods for the analysis of proteins and peptides in synthetic and biological samples and the challenges of CE methods are discussed, along with perspectives about the future direction of CE-MS. @ 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Mass Spec Rev 00:1-16, 2019.

Indexed as

AnimalsElectrophoresis, CapillaryHumansMass SpectrometryProteomeProteomicsSpectrometry, Mass, Electrospray IonizationProteomecapillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometryelectrospray ionizationnative mass spectrometryproteomicstop-down mass spectrometry

Identifiers

PMID31407381
PMCPMC6800771

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.