Dataset Information

Defining tissue proteomes by systematic literature review.

ABSTRACT: Defining protein composition is a key step in understanding the function of both healthy and diseased biological systems. There is currently little consensus between existing published proteomes in tissues such as the aorta, cartilage and organs such as skin. Lack of agreement as to both the number and identity of proteins may be due to issues in protein extraction, sensitivity/specificity of detection and the use of disparate tissue/cell sources. Here, we developed a method combining bioinformatics and systematic review to screen >32M articles from the Web of Science for evidence of proteins in healthy human skin. The resulting Manchester Proteome ( www.manchesterproteome.manchester.ac.uk ) collates existing evidence which characterises 2,948 skin proteins, 437 unique to our database and 2011 evidenced by both mass spectrometry and immune-based techniques. This approach circumvents the limitations of individual proteomics studies and can be applied to other species, organs, cells or disease-states. Accurate tissue proteomes will aid development of engineered constructs and offer insight into disease treatments by highlighting differences in proteomic composition.

SUBMITTER: Hibbert SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5765030 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining tissue proteomes by systematic literature review.

Hibbert Sarah A SA Ozols Matiss M Griffiths Christopher E M CEM Watson Rachel E B REB Bell Mike M Sherratt Michael J MJ

Scientific reports 20180111 1

Defining protein composition is a key step in understanding the function of both healthy and diseased biological systems. There is currently little consensus between existing published proteomes in tissues such as the aorta, cartilage and organs such as skin. Lack of agreement as to both the number and identity of proteins may be due to issues in protein extraction, sensitivity/specificity of detection and the use of disparate tissue/cell sources. Here, we developed a method combining bioinforma ...[more]

PMID: 29323144

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies.MethodA literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching.ResultsEight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process.ConclusionsEight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.

Dataset Information

Defining tissue proteomes by systematic literature review.

Publications

Defining tissue proteomes by systematic literature review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets