ReviewJournal of proteome research2024
I'm Walking into Spiderwebs: Making Sense of Protein-Protein Interaction Data.
Review in Journal of proteome research, 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.
- Functional flexibility in bacterial hub proteins is driven by proteome expansion.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Peptide abundance correlations in metaproteomics enhance taxonomic and functional analysis of the human gut microbiome.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Protein-protein interactions (PPIs) are at the heart of the molecular landscape permeating life. Proteomics studies can explore this protein interaction landscape using mass spectrometry (MS). Thanks to their high sensitivity, mass spectrometers can easily identify thousands of proteins within a single sample, but that same sensitivity generates tangled spiderwebs of data that hide biologically relevant findings. So, what does a researcher do when she finds herself walking into spiderwebs? In a field focused on discovery, MS data require rigor in their analysis, experimental validation, or a combination of both. In this Review, we provide a brief primer on MS-based experimental methods to identify PPIs. We discuss approaches to analyze the resulting data and remove the proteomic background. We consider the advantages between comprehensive and targeted studies. We also discuss how scoring might be improved through AI-based protein structure information. Women have been essential to the development of proteomics, so we will specifically highlight work by women that has made this field thrive in recent years.
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.