Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34579805›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

PGFinder, a novel analysis pipeline for the consistent, reproducible, and high-resolution structural analysis of bacterial peptidoglycans.

Ankur V Patel, Robert D Turner, Aline Rifflet, Adelina E Acosta-Martin, Andrew Nichols, Milena M Awad, Dena Lyras, Ivo Gomperts Boneca, Marshall Bern, Mark O Collins and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Biochemistry · 2025
    Article
  6. A conserved editing mechanism for the fidelity of bacterial cell wall biosynthesis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Chemical science · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

11 authors.

Ankur V PatelSchool of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8161-3455
Robert D TurnerDepartment of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Aline RiffletInstitut Pasteur, Unité Biologie et Génétique de la Paroi Bactérienne, Paris, France.
Adelina E Acosta-MartinbiOMICS Facility, Faculty of Science Mass Spectrometry Centre, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Andrew NicholsProtein Metrics Inc, Cupertino, United States.
Milena M AwadInfection and Immunity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Clayton, Australia.
Dena LyrasInfection and Immunity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Clayton, Australia.
Ivo Gomperts BonecaInstitut Pasteur, Unité Biologie et Génétique de la Paroi Bactérienne, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8122-509X
Marshall BernProtein Metrics Inc, Cupertino, United States.
Mark O CollinsSchool of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7656-4975
Stéphane MesnageSchool of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1648-4890

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M011151/1Medical Research Council MR/S009272/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many software solutions are available for proteomics and glycomics studies, but none are ideal for the structural analysis of peptidoglycan (PG), the essential and major component of bacterial cell envelopes. It icomprises glycan chains and peptide stems, both containing unusual amino acids and sugars. This has forced the field to rely on manual analysis approaches, which are time-consuming, labour-intensive, and prone to error. The lack of automated tools has hampered the ability to perform high-throughput analyses and prevented the adoption of a standard methodology. Here, we describe a novel tool called PGFinder for the analysis of PG structure and demonstrate that it represents a powerful tool to quantify PG fragments and discover novel structural features. Our analysis workflow, which relies on open-access tools, is a breakthrough towards a consistent and reproducible analysis of bacterial PGs. It represents a significant advance towards peptidoglycomics as a full-fledged discipline.

Indexed as

BacteriaCarbohydrate ConformationDatasets as TopicGlycomicsMass SpectrometryPeptidoglycanReproducibility of ResultsSoftwarePeptidoglycanC. difficileclostridium difficileE. coliinfectious diseasejupyter notebookmicrobiologyopen sourcepeptidoglycan structurepeptigoglycansoftware

Identifiers

PMID34579805
PMCPMC8478412

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.