Literature DB >> 29438992

Nonlinear Regression Improves Accuracy of Characterization of Multiplexed Mass Spectrometric Assays.

Cyril Galitzine1, Jarrett D Egertson2, Susan Abbatiello3, Clark M Henderson4, Lindsay K Pino2, Michael MacCoss2, Andrew N Hoofnagle4,5, Olga Vitek6,7.   

Abstract

The need for assay characterization is ubiquitous in quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Among many assay characteristics, the limit of blank (LOB) and limit of detection (LOD) are two particularly useful figures of merit. LOB and LOD are determined by repeatedly quantifying the observed intensities of peptides in samples with known peptide concentrations and deriving an intensity versus concentration response curve. Most commonly, a weighted linear or logistic curve is fit to the intensity-concentration response, and LOB and LOD are estimated from the fit. Here we argue that these methods inaccurately characterize assays where observed intensities level off at low concentrations, which is a common situation in multiplexed systems. This manuscript illustrates the deficiencies of these methods, and proposes an alternative approach based on nonlinear regression that overcomes these inaccuracies. We evaluated the performance of the proposed method using computer simulations and using eleven experimental data sets acquired in Data-Independent Acquisition (DIA), Parallel Reaction Monitoring (PRM), and Selected Reaction Monitoring (SRM) mode. When the intensity levels off at low concentrations, the nonlinear model changes the estimates of LOB/LOD upwards, in some data sets by 20-40%. In absence of a low concentration intensity leveling off, the estimates of LOB/LOD obtained with nonlinear statistical modeling were identical to those of weighted linear regression. We implemented the nonlinear regression approach in the open-source R-based software MSstats, and advocate its general use for characterization of mass spectrometry-based assays.
© 2018 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29438992      PMCID: PMC5930407          DOI: 10.1074/mcp.RA117.000322

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics        ISSN: 1535-9476            Impact factor:   5.911


  23 in total

1.  Calibration and LOD/LOQ estimation of a chemiluminescent hybridization assay for residual DNA in recombinant protein drugs expressed in E. coli using a four-parameter logistic model.

Authors:  K R Lee; B Dipaolo; X Ji
Journal:  Drug Dev Ind Pharm       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Statistical method for determining and comparing limits of detection of bioassays.

Authors:  Carly A Holstein; Maryclare Griffin; Jing Hong; Paul D Sampson
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 6.986

3.  The five-parameter logistic: a characterization and comparison with the four-parameter logistic.

Authors:  Paul G Gottschalk; John R Dunn
Journal:  Anal Biochem       Date:  2005-08-01       Impact factor: 3.365

4.  Limit of blank, limit of detection and limit of quantitation.

Authors:  David A Armbruster; Terry Pry
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2008-08

5.  Multi-site assessment of the precision and reproducibility of multiple reaction monitoring-based measurements of proteins in plasma.

Authors:  Terri A Addona; Susan E Abbatiello; Birgit Schilling; Steven J Skates; D R Mani; David M Bunk; Clifford H Spiegelman; Lisa J Zimmerman; Amy-Joan L Ham; Hasmik Keshishian; Steven C Hall; Simon Allen; Ronald K Blackman; Christoph H Borchers; Charles Buck; Helene L Cardasis; Michael P Cusack; Nathan G Dodder; Bradford W Gibson; Jason M Held; Tara Hiltke; Angela Jackson; Eric B Johansen; Christopher R Kinsinger; Jing Li; Mehdi Mesri; Thomas A Neubert; Richard K Niles; Trenton C Pulsipher; David Ransohoff; Henry Rodriguez; Paul A Rudnick; Derek Smith; David L Tabb; Tony J Tegeler; Asokan M Variyath; Lorenzo J Vega-Montoto; Asa Wahlander; Sofia Waldemarson; Mu Wang; Jeffrey R Whiteaker; Lei Zhao; N Leigh Anderson; Susan J Fisher; Daniel C Liebler; Amanda G Paulovich; Fred E Regnier; Paul Tempst; Steven A Carr
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2009-06-28       Impact factor: 54.908

6.  Weighted least-squares approach to calculating limits of detection and quantification by modeling variability as a function of concentration.

Authors:  M E Zorn; R D Gibbons; W C Sonzogni
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  1997-08-01       Impact factor: 6.986

7.  Large-Scale Interlaboratory Study to Develop, Analytically Validate and Apply Highly Multiplexed, Quantitative Peptide Assays to Measure Cancer-Relevant Proteins in Plasma.

Authors:  Susan E Abbatiello; Birgit Schilling; D R Mani; Lisa J Zimmerman; Steven C Hall; Brendan MacLean; Matthew Albertolle; Simon Allen; Michael Burgess; Michael P Cusack; Mousumi Gosh; Victoria Hedrick; Jason M Held; H Dorota Inerowicz; Angela Jackson; Hasmik Keshishian; Christopher R Kinsinger; John Lyssand; Lee Makowski; Mehdi Mesri; Henry Rodriguez; Paul Rudnick; Pawel Sadowski; Nell Sedransk; Kent Shaddox; Stephen J Skates; Eric Kuhn; Derek Smith; Jeffery R Whiteaker; Corbin Whitwell; Shucha Zhang; Christoph H Borchers; Susan J Fisher; Bradford W Gibson; Daniel C Liebler; Michael J MacCoss; Thomas A Neubert; Amanda G Paulovich; Fred E Regnier; Paul Tempst; Steven A Carr
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 5.911

8.  Anti-peptide monoclonal antibodies generated for immuno-multiple reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry assays have a high probability of supporting Western blot and ELISA.

Authors:  Regine M Schoenherr; Richard G Saul; Jeffrey R Whiteaker; Ping Yan; Gordon R Whiteley; Amanda G Paulovich
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 5.911

9.  Direct and Absolute Quantification of over 1800 Yeast Proteins via Selected Reaction Monitoring.

Authors:  Craig Lawless; Stephen W Holman; Philip Brownridge; Karin Lanthaler; Victoria M Harman; Rachel Watkins; Dean E Hammond; Rebecca L Miller; Paul F G Sims; Christopher M Grant; Claire E Eyers; Robert J Beynon; Simon J Hubbard
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2016-01-10       Impact factor: 5.911

10.  Statistical characterization of multiple-reaction monitoring mass spectrometry (MRM-MS) assays for quantitative proteomics.

Authors:  D R Mani; Susan E Abbatiello; Steven A Carr
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  5 in total

1.  Bayesian Confidence Intervals for Multiplexed Proteomics Integrate Ion-statistics with Peptide Quantification Concordance.

Authors:  Leonid Peshkin; Meera Gupta; Lillia Ryazanova; Martin Wühr
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2019-07-16       Impact factor: 5.911

2.  Matrix-Matched Calibration Curves for Assessing Analytical Figures of Merit in Quantitative Proteomics.

Authors:  Lindsay K Pino; Brian C Searle; Han-Yin Yang; Andrew N Hoofnagle; William S Noble; Michael J MacCoss
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 4.466

3.  Improving Precursor Selectivity in Data-Independent Acquisition Using Overlapping Windows.

Authors:  Dario Amodei; Jarrett Egertson; Brendan X MacLean; Richard Johnson; Gennifer E Merrihew; Austin Keller; Don Marsh; Olga Vitek; Parag Mallick; Michael J MacCoss
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 3.109

4.  Low-Expressing Synucleinopathy Mouse Models Based on Oligomer-Forming Mutations and C-Terminal Truncation of α-Synuclein.

Authors:  Ana Martinez Hernandez; Ivan Silbern; Insa Geffers; Lars Tatenhorst; Stefan Becker; Henning Urlaub; Markus Zweckstetter; Christian Griesinger; Gregor Eichele
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 4.677

Review 5.  Proteome Discoverer-A Community Enhanced Data Processing Suite for Protein Informatics.

Authors:  Benjamin C Orsburn
Journal:  Proteomes       Date:  2021-03-23
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.