Cited by 1,009Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies

MS3 eliminates ratio distortion in isobaric multiplexed quantitative proteomics

Open access
Ting, Lily, Rad, Ramin, Gygi, Steven P, Haas, Wilhelm·2011·Nature Methods

Abstract

Quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics is highly versatile but not easily multiplexed. Isobaric labeling strategies allow mass spectrometry-based multiplexed proteome quantification; however, ratio distortion owing to protein quantification interference is a common effect. We present a two-proteome model (mixture of human and yeast proteins) in a sixplex isobaric labeling system to fully document the interference effect, and we report that applying triple-stage mass spectrometry (MS3) almost completely eliminates interference.

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.1714

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Ratio compression during TMT quantification due to peptide co-elution can be addressed by MS3, extensive LC fractionation, MS optimization, and computational correction.

    “Although ratio compression occurs during quantification because of peptide co-elution, the limitation can be addressed by the introduction of the MS3 method [23], extensive LC fractionation, MS optimization, and computational correction [24], to allow deep proteomic analysis [18, 25, 26].”
  • For MS3 spectra, only those with an average signal-to-noise value greater than 40 per reporter ion and an isolation specificity greater than 0.75 were quantified.

    “For MS3 spectra, only those with an average signal-to-noise value > 40 per reporter ion and an isolation specificity86 > 0.75 were quantified.”

    From LKB1 regulates JNK-dependent stress signaling and apoptotic dependency of KRAS-mutant lung cancers (2025) · cites this paper as [86]

    The Online Methods sections on quantitative data analysis and isolation specificity describe how reporter-ion intensities and isolation specificity were calculated, but do not state the claimed cutoffs. Searches for a signal-to-noise threshold of 40 and an isolation-specificity threshold of 0.75 found no passage establishing them as requirements for quantifying MS3 spectra. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A number of studies have shown that while levels of many proteins are strongly correlated with their transcript levels, with coincident eQTL and pQTL, the correlations for most protein-transcript pairs are modest.

    “A number of studies have now shown that while levels of many proteins are strongly correlated with their transcript levels, with coincident eQTL and protein QTL (pQTL), the correlations for most protein–transcript pairs are modest [51–58].”

    From Multi-omics approaches to disease (2017) · cites this paper as [56]

  • One strategy to minimize the missing value problem is to measure peptide and protein levels using a multiplex tagging approach with isobaric tandem mass tags (TMTs).

    “One strategy to minimize the missing value problem is to measure peptide and protein levels using a multiplex tagging approach with isobaric tandem mass tags (TMTs) [8–11].”
  • Using an appropriate pooled sample study design and mass spectrometry instrumentation that can perform MS3 reporter quantitation, missing values can be minimized within an experimental cohort using a TMT approach while avoiding dynamic range compression effects.

    “Using an appropriate pooled sample study design and mass spectrometry instrumentation that can perform MS3 reporter quantitation, missing values can be minimized within an experimental cohort using a TMT approach while avoiding dynamic range compression effects [8].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ting, L., Rad, R., Gygi, S. P., & Haas, W.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Gygi, Steven P
  • Haas, Wilhelm
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2011-10-02
Volume
8
Issue
11
Pages
937-940
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2012626734
Cited by
1,009
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 88 · 2021: 102 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 41
FWCI
22.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (HG3456, R01HG003456)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM 67945, R01GM067945)
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 › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Keywords
isobaric labeling, quantitative proteomics
MeSH terms
HeLa Cells, Humans, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Mass Spectrometry, 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