Literature DB >> 32929967

A Review of Imputation Strategies for Isobaric Labeling-Based Shotgun Proteomics.

Lisa M Bramer1, Jan Irvahn2, Paul D Piehowski3, Karin D Rodland3, Bobbie-Jo M Webb-Robertson3.   

Abstract

The throughput efficiency and increased depth of coverage provided by isobaric-labeled proteomics measurements have led to increased usage of these techniques. However, the structure of missing data is different than unlabeled studies, which prompts the need for this review to compare the efficacy of nine imputation methods on large isobaric-labeled proteomics data sets to guide researchers on the appropriateness of various imputation methods. Imputation methods were evaluated by accuracy, statistical hypothesis test inference, and run time. In general, expectation maximization and random forest imputation methods yielded the best performance, and constant-based methods consistently performed poorly across all data set sizes and percentages of missing values. For data sets with small sample sizes and higher percentages of missing data, results indicate that statistical inference with no imputation may be preferable. On the basis of the findings in this review, there are core imputation methods that perform better for isobaric-labeled proteomics data, but great care and consideration as to whether imputation is the optimal strategy should be given for data sets comprised of a small number of samples.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accuracy; hypothesis testing; imputation; isobaric-labeled proteomics; missing data

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32929967      PMCID: PMC8996546          DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c00123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Proteome Res        ISSN: 1535-3893            Impact factor:   4.466


  36 in total

Review 1.  Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: critical review update from 2007 to the present.

Authors:  Marcus Bantscheff; Simone Lemeer; Mikhail M Savitski; Bernhard Kuster
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2012-07-08       Impact factor: 4.142

2.  DtaRefinery, a software tool for elimination of systematic errors from parent ion mass measurements in tandem mass spectra data sets.

Authors:  Vladislav A Petyuk; Anoop M Mayampurath; Matthew E Monroe; Ashoka D Polpitiya; Samuel O Purvine; Gordon A Anderson; David G Camp; Richard D Smith
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 5.911

3.  Data Imputation in Merged Isobaric Labeling-Based Relative Quantification Datasets.

Authors:  Nicolai Bjødstrup Palstrøm; Rune Matthiesen; Hans Christian Beck
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2020

4.  Reproducible workflow for multiplexed deep-scale proteome and phosphoproteome analysis of tumor tissues by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Philipp Mertins; Lauren C Tang; Karsten Krug; David J Clark; Marina A Gritsenko; Lijun Chen; Karl R Clauser; Therese R Clauss; Punit Shah; Michael A Gillette; Vladislav A Petyuk; Stefani N Thomas; D R Mani; Filip Mundt; Ronald J Moore; Yingwei Hu; Rui Zhao; Michael Schnaubelt; Hasmik Keshishian; Matthew E Monroe; Zhen Zhang; Namrata D Udeshi; Deepak Mani; Sherri R Davies; R Reid Townsend; Daniel W Chan; Richard D Smith; Hui Zhang; Tao Liu; Steven A Carr
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 13.491

5.  A penalized EM algorithm incorporating missing data mechanism for Gaussian parameter estimation.

Authors:  Lin S Chen; Ross L Prentice; Pei Wang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  MS-GF+ makes progress towards a universal database search tool for proteomics.

Authors:  Sangtae Kim; Pavel A Pevzner
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  2016 update of the PRIDE database and its related tools.

Authors:  Juan Antonio Vizcaíno; Attila Csordas; Noemi Del-Toro; José A Dianes; Johannes Griss; Ilias Lavidas; Gerhard Mayer; Yasset Perez-Riverol; Florian Reisinger; Tobias Ternent; Qing-Wei Xu; Rui Wang; Henning Hermjakob
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 16.971

8.  pmartR: Quality Control and Statistics for Mass Spectrometry-Based Biological Data.

Authors:  Kelly G Stratton; Bobbie-Jo M Webb-Robertson; Lee Ann McCue; Bryan Stanfill; Daniel Claborne; Iobani Godinez; Thomas Johansen; Allison M Thompson; Kristin E Burnum-Johnson; Katrina M Waters; Lisa M Bramer
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 4.466

9.  Missing Value Imputation Approach for Mass Spectrometry-based Metabolomics Data.

Authors:  Runmin Wei; Jingye Wang; Mingming Su; Erik Jia; Shaoqiu Chen; Tianlu Chen; Yan Ni
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Characterization of missing values in untargeted MS-based metabolomics data and evaluation of missing data handling strategies.

Authors:  Kieu Trinh Do; Simone Wahl; Johannes Raffler; Sophie Molnos; Michael Laimighofer; Jerzy Adamski; Karsten Suhre; Konstantin Strauch; Annette Peters; Christian Gieger; Claudia Langenberg; Isobel D Stewart; Fabian J Theis; Harald Grallert; Gabi Kastenmüller; Jan Krumsiek
Journal:  Metabolomics       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 4.290

View more
  5 in total

1.  Putting Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again: What Does Protein Quantification Mean in Bottom-Up Proteomics?

Authors:  Deanna L Plubell; Lukas Käll; Bobbie-Jo Webb-Robertson; Lisa M Bramer; Ashley Ives; Neil L Kelleher; Lloyd M Smith; Thomas J Montine; Christine C Wu; Michael J MacCoss
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2022-02-27       Impact factor: 4.466

2.  Prior Signal Acquisition Software Versions for Orbitrap Underestimate Low Isobaric Mass Tag Intensities, Without Detriment to Differential Abundance Experiments.

Authors:  Tom S Smith; Anna Andrejeva; Josie Christopher; Oliver M Crook; Mohamed Elzek; Kathryn S Lilley
Journal:  ACS Meas Sci Au       Date:  2022-03-09

3.  Analysis of Label-Based Quantitative Proteomics Data Using IsoProt.

Authors:  Johannes Griss; Veit Schwämmle
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

4.  OptiMissP: A dashboard to assess missingness in proteomic data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Angelica Arioli; Arianna Dagliati; Bethany Geary; Niels Peek; Philip A Kalra; Anthony D Whetton; Nophar Geifman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Assessment of TMT Labeling Efficiency in Large-Scale Quantitative Proteomics: The Critical Effect of Sample pH.

Authors:  Chelsea Hutchinson-Bunch; James A Sanford; Joshua R Hansen; Marina A Gritsenko; Karin D Rodland; Paul D Piehowski; Wei-Jun Qian; Joshua N Adkins
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2021-05-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.