ReviewSe pu = Chinese journal of chromatography2024
[Microbial metaproteomics--From sample processing to data acquisition and analysis].
Review in Se pu = Chinese journal of chromatography, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microorganisms are closely associated with human diseases and health. Understanding the composition and function of microbial communities requires extensive research. Metaproteomics has recently become an important method for throughout and in-depth study of microorganisms. However, major challenges in terms of sample processing, mass spectrometric data acquisition, and data analysis limit the development of metaproteomics owing to the complexity and high heterogeneity of microbial community samples. In metaproteomic analysis, optimizing the preprocessing method for different types of samples and adopting different microbial isolation, enrichment, extraction, and lysis schemes are often necessary. Similar to those for single-species proteomics, the mass spectrometric data acquisition modes for metaproteomics include data-dependent acquisition (DDA) and data-independent acquisition (DIA). DIA can collect comprehensive peptide information from a sample and holds great potential for future development. However, data analysis for DIA is challenged by the complexity of metaproteome samples, which hinders the deeper coverage of metaproteomes. The most important step in data analysis is the construction of a protein sequence database. The size and completeness of the database strongly influence not only the number of identifications, but also analyses at the species and functional levels. The current gold standard for metaproteome database construction is the metagenomic sequencing-based protein sequence database. A public database-filtering method based on an iterative database search has been proven to have strong practical value. The peptide-centric DIA data analysis method is a mainstream data analysis strategy. The development of deep learning and artificial intelligence will greatly promote the accuracy, coverage, and speed of metaproteomic analysis. In terms of downstream bioinformatics analysis, a series of annotation tools that can perform species annotation at the protein, peptide, and gene levels has been developed in recent years to determine the composition of microbial communities. The functional analysis of microbial communities is a unique feature of metaproteomics compared with other omics approaches. Metaproteomics has become an important component of the multi-omics analysis of microbial communities, and has great development potential in terms of depth of coverage, sensitivity of detection, and completeness of data analysis.
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.