Cited by 134

Comprehensive Comparison of iTRAQ and Label-free LC-Based Quantitative Proteomics Approaches Using Two Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Strains of Interest for Biofuels Engineering

Wang, Hongxia, Alvarez, Sophie, Hicks, Leslie M.·2012·Journal of Proteome Research

Abstract

Comprehensive comparisons of quantitative proteomics techniques are rare in the literature, yet they are crucially important for optimal selection of approaches and methodologies that are ideal for a given proteomics initiative. In this study, two LC-based quantitative proteomics approaches--iTRAQ and label-free--were implemented using the LTQ-Orbitrap Velos platform. For this comparison, the model used was the total protein content from two Chlamydomonas reinhardtii strains in the context of alternative biofuels production. The strain comparison includes sta6 (a starch-less mutant of cw15) that produces twice as many lipid bodies (LB) containing triacylglycerols (TAGs) as its parental strain cw15 (a cell wall-deficient C. reinhardtii strain) under nitrogen starvation. Internal standard addition was used to rigorously assess the quantitation accuracy and precision of each method. Results from iTRAQ-4plex labeling using HCD (higher energy collision-induced dissociation) fragmentation were compared to those obtained using a label-free approach based on the peak area of intact peptides and collision-induced dissociation. The accuracy and precision, number of identified/quantified proteins and statistically significant protein differences detected, as well as efficiency of these two quantitative proteomics methods were evaluated and compared. Four technical and three biological replicates of each strain were performed to assess both the technical and biological variation of both…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/pr2008225

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, H., Alvarez, S., & Hicks, L. M.
Affiliations
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, 975 North Warson Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63132, USA
Venue
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2011-12-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
487-501
ISSN
  • 1535-3893
  • 1535-3907
Cited by
134
References
0
Language
en

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