Cited by 4Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksScientific Computing and Data Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ibaqpy: A scalable Python package for baseline quantification in proteomics leveraging SDRF metadata

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Intensity-based absolute quantification (iBAQ) is essential in proteomics as it allows for the assessment of a protein's absolute abundance in various samples or conditions. However, the computation of these values for increasingly large-scale and high-throughput experiments, such as those using DIA, TMT, or LFQ workflows, poses significant challenges in scalability and reproducibility. Here, we present ibaqpy (https://github.com/bigbio/ibaqpy), a Python package designed to compute iBAQ values efficiently for experiments of any scale. Ibaqpy leverages the Sample and Data Relationship Format (SDRF) metadata standard to incorporate experimental metadata into the quantification workflow. This allows for automatic normalization and batch correction while accounting for key aspects of the experimental design, such as technical and biological replicates, fractionation strategies, and sample conditions. Designed for large-scale proteomics datasets, ibaqpy can also recompute iBAQ values for existing experiments when an SDRF is available. We showcased ibaqpy's capabilities by reanalyzing 17 public proteomics datasets from ProteomeXchange, covering HeLa cell lines with 4921 samples and 5766 MS runs, quantifying a total of 11,014 proteins. In our reanalysis, ibaqpy is a key component in automating reproducible quantification, reducing manual effort and making quantitative proteomics more accessible while supporting FAIR principles for data reuse. SIGNIFICANCE: Proteomics studies often rely on intensity-based absolute quantification (iBAQ) to assess protein abundance across various biological conditions. Despite its widespread use, computing iBAQ values at scale remains challenging due to the increasing complexity and volume of proteomics experiments. Existing tools frequently lack metadata integration, limiting their ability to handle experimental design intricacies such as replicates, fractions, and batch effects. Our work introduces ibaqpy, a scalable Python package that leverages the Sample and Data Relationship Format (SDRF) to compute iBAQ values efficiently while incorporating critical experimental metadata. By enabling automated normalization and batch correction, ibaqpy ensures reproducible and comparable quantification across large-scale datasets. We validated the utility of ibaqpy through the reanalysis of 17 public HeLa datasets, comprising over 200 million peptide features and quantifying 11,000 proteins across thousands of samples. This comprehensive reanalysis highlights the robustness and scalability of ibaqpy, making it an essential tool for researchers conducting large-scale proteomics experiments. Moreover, by promoting FAIR principles for data reuse and interoperability, ibaqpy offers a transformative approach to baseline protein quantification, supporting reproducible research and data integration within the proteomics community.

Overview

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.jprot.2025.105440

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Petryszak, 2014, Expression Atlas update--a database of gene and transcript expression from microarray- and sequencing-based functional genomics experiments, Nucleic Acids Res., 42, D926, 10.1093/nar/gkt1270 · DOI
  2. Dai, 2024, Quantms: a cloud-based pipeline for quantitative proteomics enables the reanalysis of public proteomics data, Nat. Methods, 21, 1603, 10.1038/s41592-024-02343-1 · DOI
  3. Jarnuczak, 2021, An integrated landscape of protein expression in human cancer, Sci. Data, 8, 115, 10.1038/s41597-021-00890-2 · DOI
  4. McDonagh, 2024, Human genetics and genomics for drug target identification and prioritization: open targets’ perspective, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Data Sci, 7, 59, 10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-102523-103838 · DOI
  5. Huang, 2023, PaxDb 5.0: curated protein quantification data suggests adaptive proteome changes in yeasts, Mol. Cell. Proteomics, 22, 10.1016/j.mcpro.2023.100640 · DOI
  6. Lautenbacher, 2022, ProteomicsDB: toward a FAIR open-source resource for life-science research, Nucleic Acids Res., 50, D1541, 10.1093/nar/gkab1026 · DOI
  7. Dai, 2024, Quantms: a cloud-based pipeline for quantitative proteomics enables the reanalysis of public proteomics data, Nat. Methods, 21, 1603, 10.1038/s41592-024-02343-1 · DOI
  8. Wang, 2023, Tissue-based absolute quantification using large-scale TMT and LFQ experiments, Proteomics, 23, 10.1002/pmic.202300188 · DOI
  9. Wang, 2023, Pan-cancer proteomics analysis to identify tumor-enriched and highly expressed cell surface antigens as potential targets for cancer therapeutics, Mol. Cell. Proteomics, 22, 10.1016/j.mcpro.2023.100626 · DOI
  10. Wang, 2024, Evaluating computational approaches for comparison of protein expression across cancer indications, bioRxiv
  11. Cox, 2008, MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification, Nat. Biotechnol., 26, 1367, 10.1038/nbt.1511 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Sinitcyn, 2021, MaxDIA enables library-based and library-free data-independent acquisition proteomics, Nat. Biotechnol., 39, 1563, 10.1038/s41587-021-00968-7 · DOI
  13. Kong, 2017, MSFragger: ultrafast and comprehensive peptide identification in mass spectrometry-based proteomics, Nat. Methods, 14, 513, 10.1038/nmeth.4256 · DOI
  14. Demichev, 2020, DIA-NN: neural networks and interference correction enable deep proteome coverage in high throughput, Nat. Methods, 17, 41, 10.1038/s41592-019-0638-x · DOI
  15. Cox, 2014, Accurate proteome-wide label-free quantification by delayed normalization and maximal peptide ratio extraction, termed MaxLFQ, Mol. Cell. Proteomics, 13, 2513, 10.1074/mcp.M113.031591 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Shi, 2024, LFQRatio: a normalization method to decipher quantitative proteome changes in microbial Coculture systems, J. Proteome Res., 23, 999, 10.1021/acs.jproteome.3c00714 · DOI
  17. Rosenberger, 2014, aLFQ: an R-package for estimating absolute protein quantities from label-free LC-MS/MS proteomics data, Bioinformatics, 30, 2511, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu200 · DOI
  18. Pfeuffer, 2024, OpenMS 3 enables reproducible analysis of large-scale mass spectrometry data, Nat. Methods, 21, 365, 10.1038/s41592-024-02197-7 · DOI
  19. Rost, 2014, OpenSWATH enables automated, targeted analysis of data-independent acquisition MS data, Nat. Biotechnol., 32, 219, 10.1038/nbt.2841 · DOI
  20. Pino, 2020, The skyline ecosystem: informatics for quantitative mass spectrometry proteomics, Mass Spectrom. Rev., 39, 229, 10.1002/mas.21540 · DOI
  21. Dai, 2021, A proteomics sample metadata representation for multiomics integration and big data analysis, Nat. Commun., 12, 5854, 10.1038/s41467-021-26111-3 · DOI
  22. Deutsch, 2023, The ProteomeXchange consortium at 10 years: 2023 update, Nucleic Acids Res., 51, D1539, 10.1093/nar/gkac1040 · DOI
  23. Perez-Riverol, 2025, The PRIDE database at 20 years: 2025 update, Nucleic Acids Res., 53, D543, 10.1093/nar/gkae1011 · DOI
  24. Webel, 2024, Mass spectrometry-based proteomics data from thousands of HeLa control samples, Sci. Data, 11, 112, 10.1038/s41597-024-02922-z · DOI
  25. Behdenna, 2023, pyComBat, a Python tool for batch effects correction in high-throughput molecular data using empirical Bayes methods, BMC Bioinform., 24, 459, 10.1186/s12859-023-05578-5 · DOI
  26. Colange, 2024, Differential expression analysis with inmoose, the integrated multi-omic open-source environment in python, bioRxiv
  27. Leek, 2010, Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data, Nat. Rev. Genet., 11, 733, 10.1038/nrg2825 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Metatla, 2024, Neat plasma proteomics: getting the best out of the worst, Clin. Proteomics, 21, 22, 10.1186/s12014-024-09477-6 · DOI
  29. Geyer, 2019, Plasma proteome profiling to detect and avoid sample-related biases in biomarker studies, EMBO Mol. Med., 11, 10.15252/emmm.201910427 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Krey, 2014, Accurate label-free protein quantitation with high- and low-resolution mass spectrometers, J. Proteome Res., 13, 1034, 10.1021/pr401017h · DOI
  31. Wisniewski, 2015, Absolute protein quantification allows differentiation of cell-specific metabolic routes and functions, Proteomics, 15, 1316, 10.1002/pmic.201400456 · DOI
  32. Bairoch, 2018, The Cellosaurus, a cell-line knowledge resource, J. Biomol. Tech., 29, 25, 10.7171/jbt.18-2902-002 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Petralia, 2020, Integrated proteogenomic characterization across major histological types of pediatric brain cancer, Cell, 183, 10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.044 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Pelletier, 2024, BERNN: enhancing classification of liquid chromatography mass spectrometry data with batch effect removal neural networks, Nat. Commun., 15, 3777, 10.1038/s41467-024-48177-5 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Zheng, P., Audain, E., Webel, H., Dai, C., Klein, J., Hitz, M.-P., Sachsenberg, T., Bai, M., & Perez-Riverol, Y.
Affiliations
  • Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications (CN)
  • Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE)
  • Novo Nordisk Foundation (DK)
  • Beijing Proteome Research Center (CN)
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Bai, Mingze
Venue
Journal of Proteomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-06
Volume
317
Pages
105440
ISSN
1874-3919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4409644639
Cited by
4
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3
Type
software paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Proteomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/X001911/1)
  • Wellcome Trust (208391/Z/17/Z, 223745/Z/21/Z)
  • Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
Keywords
quantitative proteomics, protein abundance quantification, batch effect correction, normalization, sample fractionation, data reanalysis, FAIR principles, reproducibility, Python, HeLa cells, interoperability, data interoperability
MeSH terms
Metadata, HeLa Cells, Humans, Software, Proteome, Databases, Protein, 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