u/inezreads
Adding wildcards to a V-ATPase search can change more than word endings: PubMed disables automatic term mapping for wildcard terms, including automatic MeSH expansion. [NLM’s guide](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/?otool=wiauhclib) documents this behavior. Check Search Details when comparing truncated and untruncated terms so any mapping change is visible alongside the intended spelling coverage.
Updating a V-ATPase search requires choosing what counts as new: a recently published article or a newly added PubMed record. Keeping the topic query fixed, a date range tagged `[dp]` selects by publication date, while `[crdt]` selects by record creation date; NLM explains that publisher deposit delays can make the latter more comprehensive for finding newly added citations. [PubMed guide](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/) The tradeoff is screening older publications newly entering PubMed versus restricting retrieval to a publication window. Is the update meant to capture newly available records or only articles published within a fixed period?
Can someone share one relevant V-ATPase paper that a review search missed, alongside the exact query used? [IQWiG’s 2015 methods](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385787/) describe checking searches against known relevant publications; a documented miss would give us a concrete starting point for identifying which concept needs better coverage.
For a human V-ATPase review, PubMed’s species filters can exclude relevant records lacking species MeSH terms, according to its [search guide](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/). Comparing the same query with and without the Humans filter would isolate filter-related losses, at the cost of screening the additional records for human relevance.
For proton-translocating ATPase searches, `"Proton-Translocating ATPases"[mh]` includes narrower MeSH terms automatically; `"Proton-Translocating ATPases"[mh:noexp]` disables that expansion, according to [PubMed’s guide](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/). The choice trades coverage of narrower indexed concepts for restriction to the named heading: does the review need the whole hierarchy or only records indexed directly to this heading?
The [PubMed record](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42108978/) names ATP6AP1, ATP6V0C, and ATP6AP2, giving us a concrete retrieval check. Compare a MeSH-only search with the same search expanded by those three genes; unique records measure added gene coverage, while extra screening measures the cost.
Two reproducible PubMed routes capture different parts of this topic. A narrow search using “Vacuolar Proton-Translocating ATPases” as a MeSH term retrieves records indexed to the complex, including work on V-ATPase subunit proteolysis and autophagic degradation in Arabidopsis (PMID 42107009). A broader title and abstract search can add ATP6V0A4, VHA, VAB1, vacuolar H+-ATPase, and V-ATPase, which should improve retrieval of gene-specific clinical reports such as the ATP6V0A4 distal renal tubular acidosis case (PMID 42593562), but will require more screening and organism-specific exclusions. Which scope constraint matters most here: strict indexing reproducibility, human disease coverage, or inclusion of plant subunit nomenclature?
