The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benchmarking common quantification strategies for large-scale phosphoproteomics
Open accessAbstract
Comprehensive mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics is now feasible, but reproducible quantification remains challenging, especially for post-translational modifications such as phosphorylation. Here, we compare the most popular quantification techniques for global phosphoproteomics: label-free quantification (LFQ), stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) and MS 2 - and MS 3 -measured tandem mass tags (TMT). In a mixed species comparison with fixed phosphopeptide ratios, we find LFQ and SILAC to be the most accurate techniques. MS 2 -based TMT yields the highest precision but lowest accuracy due to ratio compression, which MS 3 -based TMT can partly rescue. However, MS 2 -based TMT outperforms MS 3 -based TMT when analyzing phosphoproteome changes in the DNA damage response, since its higher precision and larger identification numbers allow detection of a greater number of significantly regulated phosphopeptides. Finally, we utilize the TMT multiplexing capabilities to develop an algorithm for determining phosphorylation site stoichiometry, showing that such applications benefit from the high accuracy of MS 3 -based TMT.
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
Cox, J., & Mann, M. (2008) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1511 · Cited by 14,855
ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis
Wickham, H. (2009) · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 · Cited by 14,447
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
Cox, J., Hein, M. Y., Luber, C. A., Paron, I., Nagaraj, N., & Mann, M. (2014) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m113.031591 · Cited by 5,180
ATM and ATR Substrate Analysis Reveals Extensive Protein Networks Responsive to DNA Damage
Matsuoka, S., Ballif, B. A., Smogorzewska, A., McDonald, E. R., Hurov, K. E., Luo, J., Bakalarski, C. E., Zhao, Z., Solimini, N., Lerenthal, Y., et al. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1140321 · Cited by 3,075
Proteogenomics connects somatic mutations to signalling in breast cancer
CPTAC, N., Mertins, P., Mani, D. R., Ruggles, K. V., Gillette, M. A., Clauser, K. R., Wang, P., Wang, X., Qiao, J. W., Cao, S., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature18003 · Cited by 1,676
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
Michalski, A., Damoc, E., Hauschild, J.-P., Lange, O., Wieghaus, A., Makarov, A., Nagaraj, N., Cox, J., Mann, M., & Horning, S. (2011) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m111.011015 · Cited by 832
Cited by
Integrated Proteogenomic Characterization of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
Clark, D. J., Dhanasekaran, S. M., Petralia, F., Pan, J., Song, X., Hu, Y., da Veiga Leprevost, F., Reva, B., Lih, T.-S. M., Chang, H.-Y., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.007 · Cited by 730
Schweppe, D. K., Prasad, S., Belford, M. W., Navarrete-Perea, J., Bailey, D. J., Huguet, R., Jedrychowski, M. P., Rad, R., McAlister, G., Abbatiello, S. E., et al. (2019) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.8b05399 · Cited by 229
Thompson, A., Wölmer, N., Koncarevic, S., Selzer, S., Böhm, G., Legner, H., Schmid, P., Kienle, S., Penning, P., Höhle, C., et al. (2019) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.9b04474 · Cited by 186
Determining the ERK-regulated phosphoproteome driving KRAS-mutant cancer
Klomp, J. E., Diehl, J. N., Klomp, J. A., Edwards, A. C., Yang, R., Morales, A. J., Taylor, K. E., Drizyte-Miller, K., Bryant, K. L., Schaefer, A., et al. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adk0850 · Cited by 83
Korf-Klingebiel, M., Reboll, M. R., Polten, F., Weber, N., Jäckle, F., Wu, X., Kallikourdis, M., Kunderfranco, P., Condorelli, G., Giannitsis, E., et al. (2021) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.120.053365 · Cited by 71
In situ cell-type-specific cell-surface proteomic profiling in mice
Shuster, S. A., Li, J., Chon, U., Sinantha-Hu, M. C., Luginbuhl, D. J., Udeshi, N. D., Carey, D. K., Takeo, Y. H., Xie, Q., Xu, C., et al. (2022) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2022.09.025 · Cited by 70
Mari, T., Mösbauer, K., Wyler, E., Landthaler, M., Drosten, C., & Selbach, M. (2022) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/acs.jproteome.2c00198 · Cited by 70
Glousker, G., Briod, A., Quadroni, M., & Lingner, J. (2020) · The EMBO Journal · doi:10.15252/embj.2020104500 · Cited by 51
Zhang, Z., Hebert, A. S., Westphall, M. S., Coon, J. J., & Dovichi, N. J. (2019) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/acs.jproteome.9b00244 · Cited by 22
Burton, N. R., Polasky, D. A., Shikwana, F., Ofori, S., Yan, T., Geiszler, D. J., Veiga Leprevost, F. D., Nesvizhskii, A. I., & Backus, K. M. (2023) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/jacs.3c05797 · Cited by 22
Yuan, Y., Wang, C., Zhuang, X., Lin, S., Luo, M., Deng, W., Zhou, J., Liu, L., Mao, L., Peng, W., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32976-9 · Cited by 16
The fitness cost of spurious phosphorylation
Bradley, D., Hogrebe, A., Dandage, R., Dubé, A. K., Leutert, M., Dionne, U., Chang, A., Villén, J., & Landry, C. R. (2024) · The EMBO Journal · doi:10.1038/s44318-024-00200-7 · Cited by 10
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hogrebe, A., von Stechow, L., Bekker-Jensen, D. B., Weinert, B. T., Kelstrup, C. D., & Olsen, J. V.
- Venue
- Nature Communications
- Published
- 2018-03-13
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1045-1045
- ISSN
- 2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2792087494
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 15.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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.
