↓ Skip to main content

American Chemical Society

A Comparison of Common Mass Spectrometry Approaches for Paleoproteomics

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Proteome Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
56 X users

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
Title
A Comparison of Common Mass Spectrometry Approaches for Paleoproteomics
Published in
Journal of Proteome Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00703
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy P. Cleland, Elena R. Schroeter

Abstract

The last two decades have seen a broad diversity of methods used to identify and/or characterize proteins in the archeological and paleontological record. Of these, mass spectrometry has opened an unprecedented window into the proteomes of the past, providing protein sequence data from long extinct animals as well as historical and prehistorical artifacts. Thus, application of mass spectrometry to fossil remains has become an attractive source for ancient molecular sequences with which to conduct evolutionary studies, particularly in specimens older than the proposed limit of amplifiable DNA detection. However, "mass spectrometry" covers a range of mass-based proteomic approaches, each of which utilize different technology and physical principles to generate unique types of data, with their own strengths and challenges. Here, we discuss a variety of mass spectrometry techniques that have or may be used to detect and characterize archeological and paleontological proteins, with a particular focus on MALDI-MS, LC-MS/MS, TOF-SIMS, and MSi. The main differences in their functionality, the types of data they produce, and the potential effects of diagenesis on their results are considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 23%
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Other 5 4%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 19%
Arts and Humanities 15 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 11%
Chemistry 13 11%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 6%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 31 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2019.
All research outputs
#822,366
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Proteome Research
#87
of 6,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,731
of 451,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Proteome Research
#5
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.