Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39934125›Full record

ArticleScientific data2025

An expanded database of high-resolution MS/MS spectra for lichen-derived natural products.

Joe Bracegirdle, John A Elix, Udayangani Mawalagedera, Yit-Heng Chooi, Cécile Gueidan

Abstract readDataset
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Joe BracegirdleSchool of Molecular Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.
John A ElixResearch School of Chemistry, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Udayangani MawalagederaAustralian National Insect Collection, National Research Collections Australia, NCMI, CSIRO, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Yit-Heng ChooiSchool of Molecular Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia. yitheng.chooi@uwa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7719-7524
Cécile GueidanAustralian National Herbarium, National Research Collections Australia, NCMI, CSIRO, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia. cecile.gueidan@csiro.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The history of lichen compound identification has long relied on techniques such as spot tests and TLC, which have been surpassed in sensitivity and accuracy by modern metabolomic techniques such as high-resolution MS/MS. In 2019, Olivier-Jimenez et al. released the Lichen DataBase (LDB), a library containing the Q-TOF MS/MS spectra of 251 metabolites on the MetaboLights and GNPS platforms, that has been widely used for the identification of lichen-derived unknowns. To increase the compound coverage, we have generated the Orbitrap MS/MS spectra of a further 534 lichen-derived compounds from the metabolite library of Jack Elix, housed at the CANB herbarium (Canberra, Australia). This included 399 unique metabolites that are not in the LDB, bringing the total number combined to 650. Technical validation was achieved by investigating the compounds in three Australian lichen extracts using the Library Search and Molecular Networking tools on the GNPS platform. This update provides a much larger database for lichen compound identification, which we envisage will allow refining the lichen chemotaxonomy framework and contribute to compound discovery.

Indexed as

Biological ProductsDatabases, FactualLichensAustraliaMetabolomicsTandem Mass SpectrometryBiological Products

Identifiers

PMID39934125
PMCPMC11814408

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.