Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31950079›Full record

ReviewScience advances2020

Beyond mass spectrometry, the next step in proteomics.

Winston Timp, Gregory Timp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Science advances, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing 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

140 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Proteoforms as the true units of physiological function.European journal of applied physiology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Hybrid Deep Learning Model for EI-MS Spectra Prediction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Multi‑omics reveal neutrophil heterogeneity in sepsis (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Winston TimpDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2083-6027
Gregory TimpDepartments of Electrical Engineering and Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4418-5679

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proteins can be the root cause of a disease, and they can be used to cure it. The need to identify these critical actors was recognized early (1951) by Sanger; the first biopolymer sequenced was a peptide, insulin. With the advent of scalable, single-molecule DNA sequencing, genomics and transcriptomics have since propelled medicine through improved sensitivity and lower costs, but proteomics has lagged behind. Currently, proteomics relies mainly on mass spectrometry (MS), but instead of truly sequencing, it classifies a protein and typically requires about a billion copies of a protein to do it. Here, we offer a survey that illuminates a few alternatives with the brightest prospects for identifying whole proteins and displacing MS for sequencing them. These alternatives all boast sensitivity superior to MS and promise to be scalable and seem to be adaptable to bioinformatics tools for calling the sequence of amino acids that constitute a protein.

Indexed as

Mass SpectrometryProteomicsAnimalsEpitopesHumansNanoporesPeptide MappingTranscriptomeEpitopes

Identifiers

PMID31950079
PMCPMC6954058

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.