You had better learn how to use Pubmed effectively so that a) you get to read, or at least scan, all the papers of interest b) you don't have to trudge through lots of irrelevant off-topic material to locate the jewels. Years ago, I wrote a manual called Better PubMed, and I've updated it periodically. At the end it points out some of the hilarious blunders that lurk in this all-compassing database like a number of papers which include both psuedogene AND pseudogene in the same Abstract. You can't do anything about that but you can find
- papers published out of Institutions in Waterford: waterford [AD]
- the couple of papers published by Dr Mouse ignoring the couple of million papers published about The Mouse Mus musculus: mouse [AU]
- papers published by Dr S Bob: Bob S [AU]
- papers published in the noughties: 2000:2009 [PDAT]
The first step in any research project is to discover what the competition is doing . . . by reading the literature . . . using PubMed to open the door to these data. I suggested that we could look into the hypothesis that some proteins/genes were more "sexy" [as in hot current trendy] than others.
Q. How to measure that?
A. Count the number of publications about Protein "P"; then count the number that have appeared since, say, Jan 2014. Divide the latter by the former et voila! you have a Sexy Quotient.
|Protein||PubMed||Recent||Sexy Qt||Protein||PubMed||Recent||Sexy Qt|