Cited by 81Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene expression and cancer classification

Experimental reproducibility limits the correlation between mRNA and protein abundances in tumor proteomic profiles

Open access
Upadhya, Swathi Ramachandra, Ryan, Colm J.·2022·Cell Reports Methods

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Large-scale studies of human proteomes have revealed only a moderate correlation between mRNA and protein abundances. It is unclear to what extent this moderate correlation reflects post-transcriptional regulation and to what extent it reflects measurement error. Here, by analyzing replicate profiles of tumors and cell lines, we show that there is considerable variation in the reproducibility of measurements of transcripts and proteins from individual genes. Proteins with more reproducible measurements tend to have a higher mRNA-protein correlation, suggesting that measurement reproducibility accounts for a substantial fraction of the unexplained variation between mRNA and protein abundances. The reproducibility of individual proteins is somewhat consistent across studies, and we exploit this to develop an aggregate reproducibility score that explains a substantial amount of the variation in mRNA-protein correlations across multiple studies. Finally, we show that pathways previously reported to have a higher-than-average mRNA-protein correlation may simply contain members that can be more reproducibly quantified.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.crmeth.2022.100288

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Upadhya, S. R., & Ryan, C. J.
Affiliations
University College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Ryan, Colm J.
Venue
Cell Reports Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-09
Volume
2
Issue
9
Pages
100288
ISSN
2667-2375 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4296605715
Cited by
81
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2
FWCI
4.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell Reports Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • University College Dublin
  • Irish Research Council (Laureate Awards 2017/2018, 2017/2018)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
mRNA-protein correlation, measurement reproducibility, cancer proteomics, post-transcriptional regulation, gene expression profiling, proteomic profiling, measurement error, cancer cell lines
MeSH terms
Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Neoplasms, RNA, Messenger, Reproducibility of Results, Proteomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review