ArticleMolecular systems biology2024
Rescuing error control in crosslinking mass spectrometry.
Article in Molecular systems biology, 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.
- Crosstalk between lactylation and other post-translational modifications in health and diseases.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Review
- Towards a phylogenetically informed approach to solving protein-protein interactions.Biochemical Society transactions · 2025Review
- Prosit-XL: enhanced cross-linked peptide identification by fragment intensity prediction to study protein interactions and structures.Nature communications · 2025Article
- PhoXplex: Combining Phospho-enrichable Cross-Linking with Isobaric Labeling for Quantitative Proteome-Wide Mapping of Protein Interfaces.Journal of proteome research · 2024Article
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
Crosslinking mass spectrometry is a powerful tool to study protein-protein interactions under native or near-native conditions in complex mixtures. Through novel search controls, we show how biassing results towards likely correct proteins can subtly undermine error estimation of crosslinks, with significant consequences. Without adjustments to address this issue, we have misidentified an average of 260 interspecies protein-protein interactions across 16 analyses in which we synthetically mixed data of different species, misleadingly suggesting profound biological connections that do not exist. We also demonstrate how data analysis procedures can be tested and refined to restore the integrity of the decoy-false positive relationship, a crucial element for reliably identifying protein-protein interactions.
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.