Cited by 32Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications

Enhanced information output from shotgun proteomics data by protein quantification and peptide quality control (PQPQ)

Open access
Forshed, Jenny, Johansson, Henrik J., Pernemalm, Maria, Branca, Rui M.M., Sandberg, AnnSofi, Lehtiö, Janne·2011·Molecular & Cellular Proteomics

Abstract

We present a tool to improve quantitative accuracy and precision in mass spectrometry based on shotgun proteomics: protein quantification by peptide quality control, PQPQ. The method is based on the assumption that the quantitative pattern of peptides derived from one protein will correlate over several samples. Dissonant patterns arise either from outlier peptides or because of the presence of different protein species. By correlation analysis, protein quantification by peptide quality control identifies and excludes outliers and detects the existence of different protein species. Alternative protein species are then quantified separately. By validating the algorithm on seven data sets related to different cancer studies we show that data processing by protein quantification by peptide quality control improves the information output from shotgun proteomics. Data from two labeling procedures and three different instrumental platforms was included in the evaluation. With this unique method using both peptide sequence data and quantitative data we can improve the quantitative accuracy and precision on the protein level and detect different protein species.

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 · 10.1074/mcp.m111.010264

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?

  • Additional sources of uncertainty may arise from processes such as protein quantification in bottom-up proteomics because measurements are made at the peptide level and isoforms can be difficult to identify.

    “additional sources of uncertainty may arise from processes such as protein quantification in bottom-up proteomics (Rifai et al., 2006; Plubell et al., 2022) as measurements are made at the peptide level and isoforms can be difficult to identify (Forshed et al., 2011; Webb-Robertson et al., 2014).”
  • Several proposed methods exclude peptide measurements from the aggregate protein quantity when they are outliers relative to other peptides mapping to the same protein-coding gene.

    “The approach of several proposed methods focuses on the exclusion of peptide measurements from inclusion in the aggregate protein quantity if they are outliers from other peptide measurements mapping to the same protein coding gene.(28–33)”
  • Outlier-exclusion methods improve protein concentration estimates but still report only one protein quantity and ignore peptides that do not agree with that value.

    “While these all demonstrate improved protein concentration estimates, they still only report a single protein quantity and ignore peptides that do not agree with that single value.”

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
Forshed, J., Johansson, H. J., Pernemalm, M., Branca, R. M. M., Sandberg, A., & Lehtiö, J.
Affiliations
Science for Life Laboratory (SE)
Corresponding author
Forshed, Jenny
Venue
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
M111.010264
ISSN
1535-9476 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2137941815
Cited by
32
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular & Cellular Proteomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Agilent Foundation
  • Cancerfonden
  • Stockholms Läns Landsting
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Cancerföreningen i Stockholm
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
protein quantification, shotgun proteomics, protein isoforms, isobaric labeling, cancer proteomics
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Chromatography, Liquid, Humans, Isotope Labeling, Peptides, Proteins, Quality Control, Software, Mass Spectrometry, Statistics as Topic, Alternative Splicing, Sequence Analysis, Protein, Databases, Protein, Proteomics, Tandem Mass Spectrometry

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