Peptide-level Robust Ridge Regression Improves Estimation, Sensitivity, and Specificity in Data-dependent Quantitative Label-free Shotgun Proteomics
Open accessAbstract
Peptide intensities from mass spectra are increasingly used for relative quantitation of proteins in complex samples. However, numerous issues inherent to the mass spectrometry workflow turn quantitative proteomic data analysis into a crucial challenge. We and others have shown that modeling at the peptide level outperforms classical summarization-based approaches, which typically also discard a lot of proteins at the data preprocessing step. Peptide-based linear regression models, however, still suffer from unbalanced datasets due to missing peptide intensities, outlying peptide intensities and overfitting. Here, we further improve upon peptide-based models by three modular extensions: ridge regression, improved variance estimation by borrowing information across proteins with empirical Bayes and M-estimation with Huber weights. We illustrate our method on the CPTAC spike-in study and on a study comparing wild-type and ArgP knock-out Francisella tularensis proteomes. We show that the fold change estimates of our robust approach are more precise and more accurate than those from state-of-the-art summarization-based methods and peptide-based regression models, which leads to an improved sensitivity and specificity. We also demonstrate that ionization competition effects come already into play at very low spike-in concentrations and confirm that analyses with peptide-based regression methods on peptide intensity values aggregated by charge state and modification status (e.g. MaxQuant's peptides.txt file) are slightly superior to analyses on raw peptide intensity values (e.g. MaxQuant's evidence.txt file).
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
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.
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?
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)”
From Putting humpty dumpty back together again: what does protein quantification mean in bottom-up proteomics? (2022) · cites this paper as [29]
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.”
From Putting humpty dumpty back together again: what does protein quantification mean in bottom-up proteomics? (2022) · cites this paper as [29]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 110
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Ruppert, D., Wand, M. P., and Carroll, R. J. (2003) Semiparametric Regres- sion, Cambridge University Press, New York
- Authors
- Goeminne, L. E., Gevaert, K., & Clement, L.
- Affiliations
- Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie (BE)
- Ghent University (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Gevaert, Kris
- Clement, Lieven
- Venue
- Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 657-668
- ISSN
- 1535-9476 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4739679
- OpenAlex
- W2178634736
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 2.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Molecular & Cellular Proteomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- IAP research network “StUDyS” grant of the Belgian government (Belgian Science Policy) (P7/06)
- Multidisciplinary Research Partnership “Bioinformatics: from nucleotides to networks” of Ghent University
- Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT-Vlaanderen) (141573)
- 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
- label-free quantitative proteomics, shotgun proteomics, robust linear regression, M-estimation, sensitivity and specificity
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, Peptides, Mass Spectrometry, Linear Models, 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