Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33653632›Full record

ReviewTrends in biochemical sciences2021

Single-Cell Proteomics.

Luke F Vistain, Savaş Tay

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in biochemical sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Protein-Ratio Rheostats: Integrating Stoichiometry, Abundance, and Binding Affinity in Cellular Function.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Plasma-Derived Extracellular Vesicle Proteomics.Journal of proteome research · 2025
    Review
  20. Article

35 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.

Luke F VistainPritzker School of Molecular Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA; Institute for Genomics and Systems Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Savaş TayPritzker School of Molecular Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA; Institute for Genomics and Systems Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. Electronic address: tays@uchicago.edu.

Funding

Ultra-Sensitive Multiplexed Quantification of Proteins Secreted from Single-Cells - Resubmission 01R01GM127527 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI TAY, SAVAS · 2019 to 2022
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM127527
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The inability to make broad, minimally biased measurements of a cell's proteome stands as a major bottleneck for understanding how gene expression translates into cellular phenotype. Unlike sequencing for nucleic acids, there is no dominant method for making single-cell proteomic measurements. Instead, methods typically focus on either absolute quantification of a small number of proteins or highly multiplexed protein measurements. Advances in microfluidics and output encoding have led to major improvements in both aspects. Here, we review the most recent progress that has enabled hundreds of protein measurements and ultrahigh-sensitivity quantification. We also highlight emerging technologies such as single-cell mass spectrometry that may enable unbiased measurement of cellular proteomes.

Indexed as

ProteomeProteomicsMass SpectrometryProteomemultiomicmultiplexingproteometargeted proteomicsuntargeted proteomics

Identifiers

PMID33653632
PMCPMC11697639

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.