Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37117532›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Chemistry2021

Induced volatolomics of pathologies.

Fabiola Djago, Justin Lange, Pauline Poinot

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. 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

3 authors.

Fabiola DjagoUniversity of Poitiers, UMR CNRS 7285, Institut de Chimie des Milieux et Matériaux de Poitiers (IC2MP), E.BiCoM Team, Poitiers, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4960-2320
Justin LangeUniversity of Poitiers, UMR CNRS 7285, Institut de Chimie des Milieux et Matériaux de Poitiers (IC2MP), E.BiCoM Team, Poitiers, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3020-1092
Pauline PoinotUniversity of Poitiers, UMR CNRS 7285, Institut de Chimie des Milieux et Matériaux de Poitiers (IC2MP), E.BiCoM Team, Poitiers, France. pauline.poinot@univ-poitiers.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7927-1887

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Volatolomics allows us to elucidate cell metabolic processes in real time. In particular, a volatile organic compound (VOC) excreted from our bodies may be specific for a certain disease, such that measuring this VOC may afford a simple, fast, accessible and safe diagnostic approach. Yet, finding the optimal endogenous volatile marker specific to a pathology is non-trivial because of interlaboratory disparities in sample preparation and analysis, as well as high interindividual variability. These limit the sensitivity and specificity of volatolomics and its applications in biological and clinical fields but have motivated the development of induced volatolomics. This approach aims to overcome issues by measuring VOCs that result not from an endogenous metabolite but, rather, from the pathogen-specific or metabolic-specific enzymatic metabolism of an exogenous biological or chemical probe. In this Review, we introduce volatile-compound-based probes and discuss how they can be exploited to detect and discriminate pathogenic infections, to assess organ function and to diagnose and monitor cancers in real time. We focus on cases in which labelled probes have informed us about metabolic processes and consider the potential and drawbacks of the probes for clinical trials. Beyond diagnostics, VOC-based probes may also be effective tools to explore biological processes more generally.

Identifiers

PMID37117532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.