ReviewJournal of mass spectrometry : JMS2024
The path forward for protein footprinting, covalent labeling, and mass spectrometry-based protein conformational analyses.
Review in Journal of mass spectrometry : JMS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Protein Conformation via Diazirine-Promoted Oxidation of Methionine and Tryptophan Residues.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Structural mass spectrometry techniques for characterisation of plant and algal proteins.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Cleavable Crosslinking for Characterization of Proteoform Structural Differences by Top-Down Mass Spectrometry.International journal of mass spectrometry · 2026Article
- Strategies for Acid and Amine Cross-linking and Labeling for Protein Structural Characterization Using Mass Spectrometry.Analytical chemistry · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Mass spectrometry-based approaches to assess protein conformation have become widely utilized due to their sensitivity, low sample requirements, and broad applicability to proteins regardless of size and environment. Their wide applicability and sensitivity also make these techniques suitable for the analysis of complex mixtures of proteins, and thus, they have been applied at the cell and even the simple organism levels. These works are impressive, but they predominately employ "bottom-up" workflows and require proteolytic digestion prior to analysis. Once digested, it is not possible to distinguish the proteoform from which any single peptide is derived and therefore, one cannot associate distal-in primary structure-concurrent post-translational modifications (PTMs) or covalent labels, as they would be found on separate peptides. Thus, analyses via bottom-up proteomics report the average PTM status and higher-order structure (HOS) of all existing proteoforms. Second, these works predominately employ promiscuous reagents to probe protein HOS. While this does lead to improved conformational resolution, the formation of many products can divide the signal associated with low-copy number proteins below signal-to-noise thresholds and complicate the bioinformatic analysis of these already challenging systems. In this perspective, I further detail these limitations and discuss the positives and negatives of top-down proteomics as an alternative.
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.