Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38621258›Full record

ArticleJournal of proteome research2024

Bone Proteomics Method Optimization for Forensic Investigations.

Luke Gent, Maria Elena Chiappetta, Stuart Hesketh, Pawel Palmowski, Andrew Porter, Andrea Bonicelli, Edward C Schwalbe, Noemi Procopio

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Molecular Age Estimation: Current Perspectives and Future Considerations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Reduced Dietary Protein Induces Changes in the Dental Proteome.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Luke GentSchool of Law and Policing, Research Centre for Field Archaeology and Forensic Taphonomy, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, United Kingdom.
Maria Elena ChiappettaSchool of Law and Policing, Research Centre for Field Archaeology and Forensic Taphonomy, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, United Kingdom.
Stuart HeskethSchool of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, United Kingdom.
Pawel PalmowskiNUPPA Facility, Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, United Kingdom.
Andrew PorterNUPPA Facility, Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, United Kingdom.
Andrea BonicelliSchool of Law and Policing, Research Centre for Field Archaeology and Forensic Taphonomy, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, United Kingdom.
Edward C SchwalbeDepartment of Applied Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 8ST, United Kingdom.
Noemi ProcopioSchool of Law and Policing, Research Centre for Field Archaeology and Forensic Taphonomy, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7461-7586
University of Lancashire · GBNewcastle University · GBNorthumbria University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The application of proteomic analysis to forensic skeletal remains has gained significant interest in improving biological and chronological estimations in medico-legal investigations. To enhance the applicability of these analyses to forensic casework, it is crucial to maximize throughput and proteome recovery while minimizing interoperator variability and laboratory-induced post-translational protein modifications (PTMs). This work compared different workflows for extracting, purifying, and analyzing bone proteins using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS)/MS including an in-StageTip protocol previously optimized for forensic applications and two protocols using novel suspension-trap technology (S-Trap) and different lysis solutions. This study also compared data-dependent acquisition (DDA) with data-independent acquisition (DIA). By testing all of the workflows on 30 human cortical tibiae samples, S-Trap workflows resulted in increased proteome recovery with both lysis solutions tested and in decreased levels of induced deamidations, and the DIA mode resulted in greater sensitivity and window of identification for the identification of lower-abundance proteins, especially when open-source software was utilized for data processing in both modes. The newly developed S-Trap protocol is, therefore, suitable for forensic bone proteomic workflows and, particularly when paired with DIA mode, can offer improved proteomic outcomes and increased reproducibility, showcasing its potential in forensic proteomics and contributing to achieving standardization in bone proteomic analyses for forensic applications.

Indexed as

ProteomicsTandem Mass SpectrometryBone and BonesChromatography, LiquidHumansProtein Processing, Post-TranslationalProteomeSoftwareWorkflowProteomeacquisition modesbone proteomicsforensic sciencemass spectrometryprotein extraction

Identifiers

PMID38621258
PMCPMC11077585
OpenAlexW4394822693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.