Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,206

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Label-free Methods for Quantifying Human Proteins by Shotgun Proteomics

Open access
Old, William M., Meyer-Arendt, Karen, Aveline-Wolf, Lauren, Pierce, Kevin G., Mendoza, Alex, Sevinsky, Joel R., Resing, Katheryn A., Ahn, Natalie G.·2005·Molecular & Cellular Proteomics

Abstract

Measurements of mass spectral peak intensities and spectral counts are promising methods for quantifying protein abundance changes in shotgun proteomic analyses. We describe Serac, software developed to evaluate the ability of each method to quantify relative changes in protein abundance. Dynamic range and linearity using a three-dimensional ion trap were tested using standard proteins spiked into a complex sample. Linearity and good agreement between observed versus expected protein ratios were obtained after normalization and background subtraction of peak area intensity measurements and correction of spectral counts to eliminate discontinuity in ratio estimates. Peak intensity values useful for protein quantitation ranged from 10(7) to 10(11) counts with no obvious saturation effect, and proteins in replicate samples showed variations of less than 2-fold within the 95% range (+/-2sigma) when >or=3 peptides/protein were shared between samples. Protein ratios were determined with high confidence from spectral counts when maximum spectral counts were >or=4 spectra/protein, and replicates showed equivalent measurements well within 95% confidence limits. In further tests, complex samples were separated by gel exclusion chromatography, quantifying changes in protein abundance between different fractions. Linear behavior of peak area intensity measurements was obtained for peptides from proteins in different fractions. Protein ratios determined by spectral counting agreed well with those determined from peak area intensity measurements, and both agreed with independent measurements based on gel staining intensities. Overall spectral counting proved to be a more sensitive method for detecting proteins that undergo changes in abundance, whereas peak area intensity measurements yielded more accurate estimates of protein ratios. Finally these methods were used to analyze differential changes in protein expression in human erythroleukemia K562 cells stimulated under conditions that promote cell differentiation by mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway activation. Protein changes identified with p<0.1 showed good correlations with parallel measurements of changes in mRNA expression.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1074/mcp.m500084-mcp200

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,206

Metadata

Authors
Old, W. M., Meyer-Arendt, K., Aveline-Wolf, L., Pierce, K. G., Mendoza, A., Sevinsky, J. R., Resing, K. A., & Ahn, N. G.
Venue
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-10
Volume
4
Issue
10
Pages
1487-1502
ISSN
1535-9476 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160110467
Cited by
1,206
References
2
FWCI
25.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Label-free Methods for Quantifying Human Proteins by Shotgun Proteomics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1074/mcp.m500084-mcp200
The paper
Old, W. M., Meyer-Arendt, K., Aveline-Wolf, L., Pierce, K. G., Mendoza, A., Sevinsky, J. R., Resing, K. A., & Ahn, N. G. (2005). Comparison of Label-free Methods for Quantifying Human Proteins by Shotgun Proteomics. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.m500084-mcp200

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.