Cited by 358Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications

A HUPO test sample study reveals common problems in mass spectrometry–based proteomics

Open access
HUPO Test Sample Working Group, Bell, Alexander W, Deutsch, Eric W, Au, Catherine E, Kearney, Robert E, Beavis, Ron, Sechi, Salvatore, Nilsson, Tommy +1 more·2009·Nature Methods

Abstract

We performed a test sample study to try to identify errors leading to irreproducibility, including incompleteness of peptide sampling, in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based proteomics. We distributed an equimolar test sample, comprising 20 highly purified recombinant human proteins, to 27 laboratories. Each protein contained one or more unique tryptic peptides of 1,250 Da to test for ion selection and sampling in the mass spectrometer. Of the 27 labs, members of only 7 labs initially reported all 20 proteins correctly, and members of only 1 lab reported all tryptic peptides of 1,250 Da. Centralized analysis of the raw data, however, revealed that all 20 proteins and most of the 1,250 Da peptides had been detected in all 27 labs. Our centralized analysis determined missed identifications (false negatives), environmental contamination, database matching and curation of protein identifications as sources of problems. Improved search engines and databases are needed for mass spectrometry-based proteomics.

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 · 10.1038/nmeth.1333

Cites

35 of 35 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

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?

  • In DDA MS, if the number of precursor ions exceeds the number of precursor selection cycles, precursor selection becomes stochastic and the peptides detected in repeat analyses become irreproducible.

    “If the number of precursor ions exceeds the number of precursor selection cycles6, precursor selection becomes stochastic and the peptides detected in repeat analyses become irreproducible.”
  • Software and choice of parameters for peak-picking, peptide identification, PTM identification, and quantification remain a significant source of information loss and variability, and software use is often vendor-dependent.

    “However the software and choice of parameters for peak-picking, peptide identification, PTM identification, and quantification remains a significant source of information-loss and variability97 and the use of software is often dependent on vendor.”

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

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HUPO Test Sample Working Group, Bell, A. W., Deutsch, E. W., Au, C. E., Kearney, R. E., Beavis, R., Sechi, S., Nilsson, T., & Bergeron, J. J. M.
Affiliations
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Institute for Systems Biology (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Bergeron, John J M
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2009-05-17
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
423-430
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2088363255
Cited by
351
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 32
FWCI
20.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2009-07-01)
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • McGill University
  • Genome Canada
  • Ontario Genomics
  • Ontario Genomics Institute
  • University College Dublin
  • National Institutes of Health (n01hv028179-000, RR020843)
  • University of California, Los Angeles
  • U.S. Public Health Service (P01-008111)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (N01 HV028179, N01-HV-28179)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA120393)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR 020843, U54RR020843, P41RR018627)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Advanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
Keywords
reproducibility, mass spectrometry-based proteomics, interlaboratory comparison, peptide identification, false-negative results, environmental contamination, search engines, recombinant human proteins, tryptic peptides
MeSH terms
Chromatography, Liquid, Humans, Peptide Mapping, Sensitivity and Specificity, Mass Spectrometry, Reproducibility of Results, Proteome, 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