ArticleJournal of proteome research2023
OpenCustomDB: Integration of Unannotated Open Reading Frames and Genetic Variants to Generate More Comprehensive Customized Protein Databases.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2023. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relevance of mutation-derived neoantigens and non-classical antigens for anticancer therapies.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Review
- Proteomics Can Rise to the Challenge of Pseudogenes' Coding Nature.Journal of proteome research · 2024Review
- Deciphering the ghost proteome in ovarian cancer cells by deep proteogenomic characterization.Cell death & disease · 2024Article
- OpenProt 2.0 builds a path to the functional characterization of alternative proteins.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- BamQuery: a proteogenomic tool to explore the immunopeptidome and prioritize actionable tumor antigens.Genome biology · 2023Article
- Exploring the dynamic landscape of immunopeptidomics: Unravelling posttranslational modifications and navigating bioinformatics terrain.Mass spectrometry reviewsReview
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proteomic diversity in biological samples can be characterized by mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics using customized protein databases generated from sets of transcripts previously detected by RNA-seq. This diversity has only been increased by the recent discovery that many translated alternative open reading frames rest unannotated at unsuspected locations of mRNAs and ncRNAs. These novel protein products, termed alternative proteins, have been left out of all previous custom database generation tools. Consequently, genetic variations that impact alternative open reading frames and variant peptides from their translated proteins are not detectable with current computational workflows. To fill this gap, we present OpenCustomDB, a bioinformatics tool that uses sample-specific RNaseq data to identify genomic variants in canonical and alternative open reading frames, allowing for more than one coding region per transcript. In a test reanalysis of a cohort of 16 patients with acute myeloid leukemia, 5666 peptides from alternative proteins were detected, including 201 variant peptides. We also observed that a significant fraction of peptide-spectrum matches previously assigned to peptides from canonical proteins got better scores when reassigned to peptides from alternative proteins. Custom protein libraries that include sample-specific sequence variations of all possible open reading frames are promising contributions to the development of proteomics and precision medicine. The raw and processed proteomics data presented in this study can be found in PRIDE repository with accession number PXD029240.
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.