MOTIVATION: Labeling techniques are being used increasingly to estimate relative protein abundances in quantitative proteomic studies. These techniques require the accurate measurement of correspondingly labeled peptide peak intensities to produce high-quality estimates of differential expression ratios. In mass spectrometers with counting detectors, the measurement noise varies with intensity and consequently accuracy increases with the number of ions detected. Consequently, the relative variability of peptide intensity measurements varies with intensity. This effect must be accounted for when combining information from multiple peptides to estimate relative protein abundance. RESULTS: We examined a variety of algorithms that estimate protein differential expression ratios from multiple peptide intensity measurements. Algorithms that account for the variation of measurement error with intensity were found to provide the most accurate estimates of differential abundance. A simple Sum-of-Intensities algorithm provided the best estimates of true protein ratios of all algorithms tested.
MOTIVATION: Labeling techniques are being used increasingly to estimate relative protein abundances in quantitative proteomic studies. These techniques require the accurate measurement of correspondingly labeled peptide peak intensities to produce high-quality estimates of differential expression ratios. In mass spectrometers with counting detectors, the measurement noise varies with intensity and consequently accuracy increases with the number of ions detected. Consequently, the relative variability of peptide intensity measurements varies with intensity. This effect must be accounted for when combining information from multiple peptides to estimate relative protein abundance. RESULTS: We examined a variety of algorithms that estimate protein differential expression ratios from multiple peptide intensity measurements. Algorithms that account for the variation of measurement error with intensity were found to provide the most accurate estimates of differential abundance. A simple Sum-of-Intensities algorithm provided the best estimates of true protein ratios of all algorithms tested.
Authors: Boris Reidel; J Will Thompson; Sina Farsiu; M Arthur Moseley; Nikolai P Skiba; Vadim Y Arshavsky Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Andrei P Drabovich; Maria P Pavlou; Apostolos Dimitromanolakis; Eleftherios P Diamandis Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Georgios Efstathiou; Andreas N Antonakis; Georgios A Pavlopoulos; Theodosios Theodosiou; Peter Divanach; David C Trudgian; Benjamin Thomas; Nikolas Papanikolaou; Michalis Aivaliotis; Oreste Acuto; Ioannis Iliopoulos Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Alexander B Saltzman; Mei Leng; Bhoomi Bhatt; Purba Singh; Doug W Chan; Lacey Dobrolecki; Hamssika Chandrasekaran; Jong M Choi; Antrix Jain; Sung Y Jung; Michael T Lewis; Matthew J Ellis; Anna Malovannaya Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Chengjian Tu; Kay D Beharry; Xiaomeng Shen; Jun Li; Lianshui Wang; Jacob V Aranda; Jun Qu Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Douglas W Mahoney; Ann L Oberg; Roman M Zenka; Kenneth L Johnson; K Sreekumaran Nair; Yogish C Kudva; H Robert Bergen; Terry M Therneau Journal: J Proteomics Bioinform Date: 2010-12-15
Authors: Biswapriya B Misra; Ekong Bassey; Andrew C Bishop; David T Kusel; Laura A Cox; Michael Olivier Journal: Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 2.419