ArticleJournal of mass spectrometry : JMS2021
Extraction optimization for combined metabolomics, peptidomics, and proteomics analysis of gut microbiota samples.
Article in Journal of mass spectrometry : JMS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Untargeted mass spectrometry to investigate ocean acidification inThe Analyst · 2026Article
- Functional and Bioactive Benefits of Selected Microalgal Hydrolysates Assessed In Silico and In Vitro.Marine drugs · 2025Article
- Recent advances in mass spectrometry analysis of neuropeptides.Mass spectrometry reviews · 2023Review
- Applications of Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS) in Protein Analysis for Biomedical Research.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Advances in experimental and computational methodologies for the study of microbial-surface interactions at different omics levels.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Bacterial Extracellular Vesicles in Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer: An Unexplored Territory.Cancers · 2021Review
- Developing mass spectrometry for the quantitative analysis of neuropeptides.Expert review of proteomics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multiomic studies are increasingly performed to gain a deeper understanding of molecular processes occurring in a biological system, such as the complex microbial communities (i.e., microbiota) that reside the distal gut. While a combination of metabolomics and proteomics is more commonly used, multiomics studies including peptidomcis characterization are less frequently undertaken. Here, we investigated three different extraction methods, chosen for their previous use in extracting metabolites, peptides, and proteins, and compared their ability to perform metabolomic, peptidomic, and proteomic analysis of mouse cecum content. The methanol/chloroform/water extraction performed the best for metabolomic and peptidomic analysis as it detected the largest number of small molecules and identified the largest number of peptides, but the acidified methanol extraction performed best for proteomics analysis as it had the highest number of protein identifications. The methanol/chloroform/water extraction was further analyzed by identifying metabolites with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) analysis and by gene ontology analysis for the peptide and protein results to provide a multiomics analysis of the gut microbiota.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.