ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Mass Spectrometry Quantification of Epigenetic Changes: A Scoping Review for Cancer and Beyond.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nanosuspension-based Ocular Therapeutics for Infection Control: Integrating Mucin Interactions and Tear Film Dynamics.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mass spectrometry has become an indispensable tool for the identification and quantification of epigenetic modifications, offering both high sensitivity and structural specificity. The two major classes of epigenetic modifications identified-DNA methylation and histone post-translational modifications-play fundamental roles in cancer development, underscoring the relevance of their precise quantification for understanding tumorigenesis and potential therapeutic targeting. In this scoping review, we included 89 studies that met the inclusion criteria for detailed methodological assessment. Among these, we compared pre-treatment workflows, analytical platforms, and acquisition modes employed to characterize epigenetic modifications in human samples and model systems. Our synthesis highlights the predominance of bottom-up strategies combined with Orbitrap-based platforms and data-dependent acquisition for histone post-translational modifications, whereas triple quadrupole mass spectrometers were predominant for DNA methylation quantification. We critically evaluate current limitations, including heterogeneity in validation reporting, insufficient coverage of combinatorial post-translational modifications, and variability in derivatization efficiency.
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.