Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 423

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Label-Free Protein Quantification Using LC-Coupled Ion Trap or FT Mass Spectrometry: Reproducibility, Linearity, and Application with Complex Proteomes

Open access
Wang, Guanghui, Wu, Wells W., Zeng, Weihua, Chou, Chung-Lin, Shen, Rong-Fong·2006·Journal of Proteome Research

Abstract

A critical step in protein biomarker discovery is the ability to contrast proteomes, a process referred generally as quantitative proteomics. While stable-isotope labeling (e.g., ICAT, 18O- or 15N-labeling, or AQUA) remains the core technology used in mass spectrometry-based proteomic quantification, increasing efforts have been directed to the label-free approach that relies on direct comparison of peptide peak areas between LC-MS runs. This latter approach is attractive to investigators for its simplicity as well as cost effectiveness. In the present study, the reproducibility and linearity of using a label-free approach to highly complex proteomes were evaluated. Various amounts of proteins from different proteomes were subjected to repeated LC-MS analyses using an ion trap or Fourier transform mass spectrometer. Highly reproducible data were obtained between replicated runs, as evidenced by nearly ideal Pearson's correlation coefficients (for ion's peak areas or retention time) and average peak area ratios. In general, more than 50% and nearly 90% of the peptide ion ratios deviated less than 10% and 20%, respectively, from the average in duplicate runs. In addition, the multiplicity ratios of the amounts of proteins used correlated nicely with the observed averaged ratios of peak areas calculated from detected peptides. Furthermore, the removal of abundant proteins from the samples led to an improvement in reproducibility and linearity. A computer program has been written to automate the processing of data sets from experiments with groups of multiple samples for statistical analysis. Algorithms for outlier-resistant mean estimation and for adjusting statistical significance threshold in multiplicity of testing were incorporated to minimize the rate of false positives. The program was applied to quantify changes in proteomes of parental and p53-deficient HCT-116 human cells and found to yield reproducible results. Overall, this study demonstrates an alternative approach that allows global quantification of differentially expressed proteins in complex proteomes. The utility of this method to biomarker discovery is likely to synergize with future improvements in the detecting sensitivity of mass spectrometers.

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 · 10.1021/pr050406g

Cites

9 of 9 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

Cited by

See all 423

Metadata

Authors
Wang, G., Wu, W. W., Zeng, W., Chou, C.-L., & Shen, R.-F.
Venue
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2006-03-21
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
1214-1223
ISSN
  • 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-3907
OpenAlex
W16674111
Cited by
423
References
9
FWCI
17.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.