ArticleAnalytical chemistry2024
Do Not Waste Time─Ensure Success in Your Cross-Linking Mass Spectrometry Experiments before You Begin.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- FAIMS-GPF XL-MS: crosslinking-mass spectrometry based on gas-phase fractionation.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Bacterial Systematic Genetics and Integrated Multi-Omics: Beyond Static Genomics Toward Predictive Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cross-linking mass spectrometry (XL-MS) has become a very useful tool for studying protein complexes and interactions in living systems. It enables the investigation of many large and dynamic assemblies in their native state, providing an unbiased view of their protein interactions and restraints for integrative modeling. More researchers are turning toward trying XL-MS to probe their complexes of interest, especially in their native environments. However, due to the presence of other potentially higher abundant proteins, sufficient cross-links on a system of interest may not be reached to achieve satisfactory structural and interaction information. There are currently no rules for predicting whether XL-MS experiments are likely to work or not; in other words, if a protein complex of interest will lead to useful XL-MS data. Here, we show that a simple iBAQ (intensity-based absolute quantification) analysis performed from trypsin digest data can provide a good understanding of whether proteins of interest are abundant enough to achieve successful cross-linking data. Comparing our findings to large-scale data on diverse systems from several other groups, we show that proteins of interest should be at least in the top 20% abundance range to expect more than one cross-link found per protein. We foresee that this guideline is a good starting point for researchers who would like to use XL-MS to study their protein of interest and help ensure a successful cross-linking experiment from the beginning. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD045792.
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.