ArticleJournal of proteins and proteomics2024
Interrogating data-independent acquisition LC-MS/MS for affinity proteomics.
Article in Journal of proteins and proteomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Susceptibility of mice to primaryFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Mapping the nanoscale organization of the human cell surface proteome reveals new functional associations and surface antigen clusters.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data-Independent Acquisition (DIA) LC-MS/MS is an attractive partner for co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP) and affinity proteomics in general. Reducing the variability of quantitation by DIA could increase the statistical contrast for detecting specific interactors versus what has been achieved in Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA). By interrogating affinity proteomes featuring both DDA and DIA experiments, we sought to evaluate the spectral libraries, the missingness of protein quantity tables, and the CV of protein quantities in six studies representing three different instrument manufacturers. We examined four contemporary bioinformatics workflows for DIA: FragPipe, DIA-NN, Spectronaut, and MaxQuant. We determined that (1) identifying spectral libraries directly from DIA experiments works well enough that separate DDA experiments do not produce larger spectral libraries when given equivalent instrument time; (2) experiments involving mock pull-downs or IgG controls may feature such indistinct signals that contemporary software will struggle to quantify them; (3) measured CV values were well controlled by Spectronaut and DIA-NN (and FragPipe, which implements DIA-NN for the quantitation step); and (4) when FragPipe builds spectral libraries and quantifies proteins from DIA experiments rather than performing both operations in DDA experiments, the DIA route results in a larger number of proteins quantified without missing values as well as lower CV for measured protein quantities. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42485-024-00166-4.
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.