Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38507203›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2024

The Complementarity of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Native Mass Spectrometry in Probing Protein-Protein Interactions.

Elisabetta Boeri Erba, Annalisa Pastore

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Elisabetta Boeri ErbaCEA, CNRS, IBS, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Annalisa PastoreEuropean Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Grenoble, France. annalisa.pastore@esrf.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and native mass spectrometry (MS) are mature physicochemical techniques with long histories and important applications. NMR spectroscopy provides detailed information about the structure, dynamics, interactions, and chemical environment of biomolecules. MS is an effective approach for determining the mass of biomolecules with high accuracy, sensitivity, and speed. The two techniques offer unique advantages and provide solid tools for structural biology. In the present review, we discuss their individual merits in the context of their applications to structural studies in biology with specific focus on protein interactions and evaluate their limitations. We provide specific examples in which these techniques can complement each other, providing new information on the same scientific case. We discuss how the field may develop and what challenges are expected in the future. Overall, the combination of NMR and MS plays an increasingly important role in integrative structural biology, assisting scientists in deciphering the three-dimensional structure of composite macromolecular assemblies.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMacromolecular SubstancesMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMass SpectrometryNuclear Magnetic Resonance, BiomolecularMacromolecular SubstancesBiophysicsNative mass spectrometry (MS)Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)Protein interactionsStructural biology

Identifiers

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.