The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
iTRAQ Underestimation in Simple and Complex Mixtures: “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”
Open accessAbstract
The increasing popularity of iTRAQ for quantitative proteomics applications makes it necessary to evaluate its relevance, accuracy, and precision for biological interpretation. Here, we have assessed (a) the accuracy and precision of iTRAQ quantification in a controlled experimental setup, using low- and high-complexity protein mixtures; and (b) the potential pitfalls that hamper the applicability and attainable dynamic range of iTRAQ: isotopic contamination, background interference, and signal-to-noise ratio. Our data suggest greater dynamic crosstalk between interfering factors affecting underestimations, and that these interferences were largely scenario-specific, dependent on sample complexity. The good is the potential for iTRAQ to provide accurate quantification spanning 2 orders of magnitude. This potential is however limited by two factors. (1) The bad: the existence of isotopic impurities that can be corrected for; provided accurate isotopic factors are at one's disposal. (2) The ugly: we demonstrate here the interference of mixed MS/MS contribution occurring during precursor selection, an issue that is currently very difficult to minimize. In light of our results, we propose a list of advice for iTRAQ data analysis that could routinely ameliorate quantitative interpretation of proteomic data sets.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Ong, S.-E., Blagoev, B., Kratchmarova, I., Kristensen, D. B., Steen, H., Pandey, A., & Mann, M. (2002) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m200025-mcp200 · Cited by 5,574
Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags
Gygi, S. P., Rist, B., Gerber, S. A., Turecek, F., Gelb, M. H., & Aebersold, R. (1999) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/13690 · Cited by 4,683
Ross, P. L., Huang, Y. N., Marchese, J. N., Williamson, B., Parker, K., Hattan, S., Khainovski, N., Pillai, S., Dey, S., Daniels, S., et al. (2004) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m400129-mcp200 · Cited by 4,401
Cited by
Mass-spectrometric exploration of proteome structure and function
Aebersold, R., & Mann, M. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature19949 · Cited by 2,334
Protein Analysis by Shotgun/Bottom-up Proteomics
Zhang, Y., Fonslow, B. R., Shan, B., Baek, M.-C., & Yates, J. R. (2013) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr3003533 · Cited by 1,491
McAlister, G. C., Nusinow, D. P., Jedrychowski, M. P., Wühr, M., Huttlin, E. L., Erickson, B. K., Rad, R., Haas, W., & Gygi, S. P. (2014) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac502040v · Cited by 1,263
MS3 eliminates ratio distortion in isobaric multiplexed quantitative proteomics
Ting, L., Rad, R., Gygi, S. P., & Haas, W. (2011) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1714 · Cited by 1,009
Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: critical review update from 2007 to the present
Bantscheff, M., Lemeer, S., Savitski, M. M., & Kuster, B. (2012) · Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · doi:10.1007/s00216-012-6203-4 · Cited by 801
Variation and genetic control of protein abundance in humans
Wu, L., Candille, S. I., Choi, Y., Xie, D., Jiang, L., Li-Pook-Than, J., Tang, H., & Snyder, M. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12223 · Cited by 364
Gillet, L. C., Leitner, A., & Aebersold, R. (2016) · Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1146/annurev-anchem-071015-041535 · Cited by 323
A Review on Quantitative Multiplexed Proteomics
Pappireddi, N., Martin, L., & Wühr, M. (2019) · ChemBioChem · doi:10.1002/cbic.201800650 · Cited by 299
Cancer proteogenomics: current impact and future prospects
Mani, D. R., Krug, K., Zhang, B., Satpathy, S., Clauser, K. R., Ding, L., Ellis, M., Gillette, M. A., & Carr, S. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41568-022-00446-5 · Cited by 229
Multiple testing corrections in quantitative proteomics: A useful but blunt tool
Pascovici, D., Handler, D. C. L., Wu, J. X., & Haynes, P. A. (2016) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.201600044 · Cited by 218
Multibatch TMT reveals false positives, batch effects and missing values
Brenes, A., Hukelmann, J., Bensaddek, D., & Lamond, A. I. (2019) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.ra119.001472 · Cited by 196
Wang, H., Alvarez, S., & Hicks, L. M. (2012) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr2008225 · Cited by 142
Longworth, J., Wu, D., Huete-Ortega, M., Wright, P. C., & Vaidyanathan, S. (2016) · Algal Research · doi:10.1016/j.algal.2016.06.015 · Cited by 127
Self-citationNiu, M., Cho, J.-H., Kodali, K., Pagala, V., High, A. A., Wang, H., Wu, Z., Li, Y., Bi, W., Zhang, H., et al. (2017) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.6b04415 · Cited by 118
Pham, T. K., Roy, S., Noirel, J., Douglas, I., Wright, P. C., & Stafford, G. P. (2010) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.200900448 · Cited by 95
Self-citationForshed, J., Johansson, H. J., Pernemalm, M., Branca, R. M. M., Sandberg, A., & Lehtiö, J. (2011) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m111.010264 · Cited by 32
Characterization and multiplexed quantification of derivatized aminophospholipids
Nie, S., Fhaner, C. J., Liu, S., Peake, D., Kiyonami, R., Huang, Y., & Reid, G. E. (2015) · International Journal of Mass Spectrometry · doi:10.1016/j.ijms.2015.07.002 · Cited by 18
Proteome-wide copy-number estimation from transcriptomics
Sweatt, A. J., Griffiths, C. D., Groves, S. M., Paudel, B. B., Wang, L., Kashatus, D. F., & Janes, K. A. (2024) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.1038/s44320-024-00064-3 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Ow, S. Y., Salim, M., Noirel, J., Evans, C., Rehman, I., & Wright, P. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Proteome Research
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2009-09-16
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 5347-5355
- ISSN
- 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
- 1535-3907
- OpenAlex
- W1999556153
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 18.66
- 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.
