Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36979426›Full record

ArticleBiomolecules2023

Quality Control-A Stepchild in Quantitative Proteomics: A Case Study for the Human CSF Proteome.

Svitlana Rozanova, Julian Uszkoreit, Karin Schork, Bettina Serschnitzki, Martin Eisenacher, Lars Tönges, Katalin Barkovits-Boeddinghaus, Katrin Marcus

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomolecules, 2023. 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
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Dynamic expression of the zebrafish (Danio rerio) proteome across early larval development.Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part D, Genomics & proteomics · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Svitlana RozanovaMedical Proteome Analysis, Center for Protein Diagnostics (ProDi), Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6861-5587
Julian UszkoreitMedical Proteome Analysis, Center for Protein Diagnostics (ProDi), Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7522-4007
Karin SchorkMedical Proteome Analysis, Center for Protein Diagnostics (ProDi), Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3756-4347
Bettina SerschnitzkiMedical Proteome Analysis, Center for Protein Diagnostics (ProDi), Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.
Martin EisenacherMedical Proteome Analysis, Center for Protein Diagnostics (ProDi), Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.
Lars TöngesDepartment of Neurology, Ruhr-University Bochum at St Josef-Hospital, 44801 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6621-144X
Katalin Barkovits-BoeddinghausMedical Proteome Analysis, Center for Protein Diagnostics (ProDi), Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2554-8796
Katrin MarcusMedical Proteome Analysis, Center for Protein Diagnostics (ProDi), Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3313-8845
Ruhr University Bochum · DESt. Josef-Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proteomic studies using mass spectrometry (MS)-based quantification are a main approach to the discovery of new biomarkers. However, a number of analytical conditions in front and during MS data acquisition can affect the accuracy of the obtained outcome. Therefore, comprehensive quality assessment of the acquired data plays a central role in quantitative proteomics, though, due to the immense complexity of MS data, it is often neglected. Here, we address practically the quality assessment of quantitative MS data, describing key steps for the evaluation, including the levels of raw data, identification and quantification. With this, four independent datasets from cerebrospinal fluid, an important biofluid for neurodegenerative disease biomarker studies, were assessed, demonstrating that sample processing-based differences are already reflected at all three levels but with varying impacts on the quality of the quantitative data. Specifically, we provide guidance to critically interpret the quality of MS data for quantitative proteomics. Moreover, we provide the free and open source quality control tool

Indexed as

Neurodegenerative DiseasesTandem Mass SpectrometryBiomarkersHumansProteomeProteomicsQuality ControlBiomarkersProteomecerebrospinal fluidFASPin-solution digestionlabel-free quantificationmass spectrometryproteomicsquality control

Identifiers

PMID36979426
PMCPMC10046854
OpenAlexW4323365131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read50
identifiers read4
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.