ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2023
PROTEOMAS: a workflow enabling harmonized proteomic meta-analysis and proteomic signature mapping.
Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-Analysis of Integrated Proteomic and Transcriptomic Data Discerns Structure-Activity Relationship of Carbon Materials with Different Morphologies.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Pooled it
- Proteomic Profiling of Alveolar Macrophages Identifies Loss of Lysosomal Content as an Indicator of Nanofiber-Induced Frustrated Phagocytosis.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Polymerase Chain Reaction Chips for Biomarker Discovery and Validation in Drug Development.Micromachines · 2025Review
- Advancing Nanomaterial Toxicology Screening Through Efficient and Cost-Effective Quantitative Proteomics.Small methods · 2024Article
- Towards characterization of cell culture conditions for reliable proteomic analysis: in vitro studies on A549, differentiated THP-1, and NR8383 cell lines.Archives of toxicology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Toxicological evaluation of substances in regulation still often relies on animal experiments. Understanding the substances' mode-of-action is crucial to develop alternative test strategies. Omics methods are promising tools to achieve this goal. Until now, most attention was focused on transcriptomics, while proteomics is not yet routinely applied in toxicology despite the large number of datasets available in public repositories. Exploiting the full potential of these datasets is hampered by differences in measurement procedures and follow-up data processing. Here we present the tool PROTEOMAS, which allows meta-analysis of proteomic data from public origin. The workflow was designed for analyzing proteomic studies in a harmonized way and to ensure transparency in the analysis of proteomic data for regulatory purposes. It agrees with the Omics Reporting Framework guidelines of the OECD with the intention to integrate proteomics to other omic methods in regulatory toxicology. The overarching aim is to contribute to the development of AOPs and to understand the mode of action of substances. To demonstrate the robustness and reliability of our workflow we compared our results to those of the original studies. As a case study, we performed a meta-analysis of 25 proteomic datasets to investigate the toxicological effects of nanomaterials at the lung level. PROTEOMAS is an important contribution to the development of alternative test strategies enabling robust meta-analysis of proteomic data. This workflow commits to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) of computational protocols.
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.