ReviewProteomes2020
How Do the Different Proteomic Strategies Cope with the Complexity of Biological Regulations in a Multi-Omic World? Critical Appraisal and Suggestions for Improvements.
Review in Proteomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sample Preparation for Multi-Omics Analysis: Considerations and Guidance for Identifying the Ideal Workflow.Proteomics · 2025Review
- Organ-Specific Small Protein Networks in 100 kDa Ultrafiltrates: Functional Analysis and Implications for Neuroregenerative Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Host cell proteins modulated upon Toxoplasma infection identified using proteomic approaches: a molecular rationale.Parasitology research · 2022Review
- Proteomes Are of Proteoforms: Embracing the Complexity.Proteomes · 2021Review
- A proteomic-informed view of the changes induced by loss of cellular adherence: The example of mouse macrophages.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this second decade of the 21st century, we are lucky enough to have different types of proteomic analyses at our disposal. Furthermore, other functional omics such as transcriptomics have also undergone major developments, resulting in mature tools. However, choice equals questions, and the major question is how each proteomic strategy is fit for which purpose. The aim of this opinion paper is to reposition the various proteomic strategies in the frame of what is known in terms of biological regulations in order to shed light on the power, limitations, and paths for improvement for the different proteomic setups. This should help biologists to select the best-suited proteomic strategy for their purposes in order not to be driven by raw availability or fashion arguments but rather by the best fitness for purpose. In particular, knowing the limitations of the different proteomic strategies helps in interpreting the results correctly and in devising the validation experiments that should be made downstream of the proteomic analyses.
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.