ArticleScientific reports2024
A universal tool for marine metazoan species identification: towards best practices in proteomic fingerprinting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unknown Germany - An integrative biodiversity discovery program.npj biodiversity · 2025Review
- High Connectivity at Abyssal Depths: Genomic and Proteomic Insights Into Population Structure of the Pan-Atlantic Deep-Sea BivalveEcology and evolution · 2025Article
- Unveiling ophiuroid biodiversity across North Atlantic habitats via an integrative perspective.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
Proteomic fingerprinting using MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry is a well-established tool for identifying microorganisms and has shown promising results for identification of animal species, particularly disease vectors and marine organisms. And thus can be a vital tool for biodiversity assessments in ecological studies. However, few studies have tested species identification across different orders and classes. In this study, we collected data from 1246 specimens and 198 species to test species identification in a diverse dataset. We also evaluated different specimen preparation and data processing approaches for machine learning and developed a workflow to optimize classification using random forest. Our results showed high success rates of over 90%, but we also found that the size of the reference library affects classification error. Additionally, we demonstrated the ability of the method to differentiate marine cryptic-species complexes and to distinguish sexes within species.
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.