Proteomics

By B. Garcia, H. Cooper, Pieter C. Dorrestein, K. Tang, B. Ueberheide. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, 2011

1,153 citations recorded by the source corpus.

1 Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA 2 School of Biosciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK 3 Departments of Pharmacology, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA 4 School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, 60 Nanyang Drive, Singapore, Singapore 63755 5 The Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry and Gaseous Ion Chemistry, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ad1ebc3560161ec4230e35a071a22109a7f1c61c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. M. M. Molina
2. Christian R. Landry
3. H. Bussey
4. Vincent Messier
5. I. Shames
6. J. Vogel
7. Yelena Malitskaya
8. K. Tarassov

Citations in the corpus

• Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data (2007, unknown): “For instance, the scaling parameter for the protein interaction network of Ito et al. (2000) has been reported to take a value of 2.44 (Yook et al., 2004), which is quite different from, and incompatible with, the value we find of 3.1±0.3.”
• An in Vivo Map of the Yeast Protein Interactome (2008, background): “Binary, sterically accesible interaction not inferred to be within a complex (MIPS = 97; Pu et al. 2007 = 276) Type III.”