ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2021
Marker peptide screening and species-specific authentication of Pheretima using proteomics.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2021. 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.
- Pharmacological effects of bioactive agents in earthworm extract: A comprehensive review.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2024Review
- Characterization of natural peptides in Pheretima by integrating proteogenomics and label-free peptidomics.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2023Article
- A novel biological sources consistency evaluation method reveals high level of biodiversity within wild natural medicine: A case study ofActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2023Article
- [Determination of the species origin and thrombin-like enzyme content ofSe pu = Chinese journal of chromatography · 2022Article
- A Strategy for Rapid Discovery of Marker Peptides Associated with Fibrinolytic Efficacy ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- An Integrated Strategy of Chemical Fingerprint and Network Pharmacology for the Discovery of Efficacy-Related Q-Markers ofInternational journal of analytical chemistry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pheretima is a common and valuable animal-derived medication used in traditional Chinese medicine. There are four species of Pheretima specified in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia (2015 edition), i.e. Pheretima aspergillum, P. vulgaris, P. guillelmi, and P. pectinifera. A recent report revealed ~ 55% of Pheretima in the commercial marketplace may be adulterated by other species, contrary to the Pharmacopoeia standard. The safety, efficacy, and authenticity of Pheretima is an important issue. Currently, the availability of specific quality-markers for the various species and effective identification methods are still limited. In this study, label-free quantification proteomics of species from Pheretima and Amynthas was carried out using nanoscale liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (nano LC-MS/MS), and marker peptides were identified based on their ion intensities using multivariate data analysis (principal component analysis and supervised partial least-squares discriminant analysis). A total of 48,476 peptides with high confidence corresponding to 13,397 proteins were identified from all samples. The marker peptides were validated by comparison with synthetic peptide reference standards using LC-MS/MS operating in a multiple-reaction monitoring mode. A multiple-peptide identification strategy was proposed for the authentication of Pheretima and subsequently applied to samples obtained from retail outlets in various regions of China. The results showed that eight out of the 15 samples tested were deemed authentic Pheretima.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33687523What 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.