Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35521579›Full record

ReviewRSC advances2018

Middle-down approach: a choice to sequence and characterize proteins/proteomes by mass spectrometry.

P Boomathi Pandeswari, Varatharajan Sabareesh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in RSC advances, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

P Boomathi PandeswariAdvanced Centre for Bio Separation Technology (CBST), Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) Vellore Tamil Nadu 632014 India v.sabareesh@vit.ac.in sabareesh6@gmail.com.
Varatharajan SabareeshAdvanced Centre for Bio Separation Technology (CBST), Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) Vellore Tamil Nadu 632014 India v.sabareesh@vit.ac.in sabareesh6@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3316-7491

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Owing to rapid growth in the elucidation of genome sequences of various organisms, deducing proteome sequences has become imperative, in order to have an improved understanding of biological processes. Since the traditional Edman method was unsuitable for high-throughput sequencing and also for N-terminus modified proteins, mass spectrometry (MS) based methods, mainly based on soft ionization modes: electrospray ionization and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization, began to gain significance. MS based methods were adaptable for high-throughput studies and applicable for sequencing N-terminus blocked proteins/peptides too. Consequently, over the last decade a new discipline called 'proteomics' has emerged, which encompasses the attributes necessary for high-throughput identification of proteins. 'Proteomics' may also be regarded as an offshoot of the classic field, 'biochemistry'. Many protein sequencing and proteomic investigations were successfully accomplished through MS dependent sequence elucidation of 'short proteolytic peptides (typically: 7-20 amino acid residues), which is called the 'shotgun' or 'bottom-up (BU)' approach. While the BU approach continues as a workhorse for proteomics/protein sequencing, attempts to sequence intact proteins without proteolysis, called the 'top-down (TD)' approach started, due to ambiguities in the BU approach,

Identifiers

PMID35521579
PMCPMC9059502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.