ArticleScientific reports2022
Resolving missing protein problems using functional class scoring.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite technological advances in proteomics, incomplete coverage and inconsistency issues persist, resulting in "data holes". These data holes cause the missing protein problem (MPP), where relevant proteins are persistently unobserved, or sporadically observed across samples, hindering biomarker discovery and proper functional characterization. Network-based approaches can provide powerful solutions for resolving these issues. Functional Class Scoring (FCS) is one such method that uses protein complex information to recover missing proteins with weak support. However, FCS has not been evaluated on more recent proteomic technologies with higher coverage, and there is no clear way to evaluate its performance. To address these issues, we devised a more rigorous evaluation schema based on cross-verification between technical replicates and evaluated its performance on data acquired under recent Data-Independent Acquisition (DIA) technologies (viz. SWATH). Although cross-replicate examination reveals some inconsistencies amongst same-class samples, tissue-differentiating signal is nonetheless strongly conserved, confirming that FCS selects for biologically meaningful networks. We also report that predicted missing proteins are statistically significant based on FCS p values. Despite limited cross-replicate verification rates, the predicted missing proteins as a whole have higher peptide support than non-predicted proteins. FCS also predicts missing proteins that are often lost due to weak specific peptide support.
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.