The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Experimental and Statistical Considerations to Avoid False Conclusions in Proteomics Studies Using Differential In-gel Electrophoresis
Open accessAbstract
In quantitative proteomics, the false discovery rate (FDR) can be defined as the number of false positives within statistically significant changes in expression. False positives accumulate during the simultaneous testing of expression changes across hundreds or thousands of protein or peptide species when univariate tests such as the Student's t test are used. Currently most researchers rely solely on the estimation of p values and a significance threshold, but this approach may result in false positives because it does not account for the multiple testing effect. For each species, a measure of significance in terms of the FDR can be calculated, producing individual q values. The q value maintains power by allowing the investigator to achieve an acceptable level of true or false positives within the calls of significance. The q value approach relies on the use of the correct statistical test for the experimental design. In this situation, a uniform p value frequency distribution when there are no differences in expression between two samples should be obtained. Here we report a bias in p value distribution in the case of a three-dye DIGE experiment where no changes in expression are occurring. The bias was shown to arise from correlation in the data from the use of a common internal standard. With a two-dye schema, where each sample has its own internal standard, such bias was removed, enabling the application of the q value to two different proteomics studies. In the case of the first study, we demonstrate that 80% of calls of significance by the more traditional method are false positives. In the second, we show that calculating the q value gives the user control over the FDR. These studies demonstrate the power and ease of use of the q value in correcting for multiple testing. This work also highlights the need for robust experimental design that includes the appropriate application of statistical procedures.
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
Statistical significance for genomewide studies
Storey, J. D., & Tibshirani, R. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1530509100 · Cited by 9,692
Cited by
Difference gel electrophoresis
Timms, J. F., & Cramer, R. (2008) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.200800298 · Cited by 267
Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis in proteomics: A tutorial
Rabilloud, T., & Lelong, C. (2011) · Journal of Proteomics · doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2011.05.040 · Cited by 258
Deery, M. J., Maywood, E. S., Chesham, J. E., Sládek, M., Karp, N. A., Green, E. W., Charles, P. D., Reddy, A. B., Kyriacou, C. P., Lilley, K. S., et al. (2009) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.024 · Cited by 125
Self-citationWasinger, V. C., Curnoe, D., Bustamante, S., Mendoza, R., Shoocongdej, R., Adler, L., Baker, A., Chintakanon, K., Boel, C., & Tacon, P. S. C. (2019) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.201800341 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Karp, N. A., McCormick, P. S., Russell, M. R., & Lilley, K. S.
- Venue
- Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1354-1364
- ISSN
- 1535-9476 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2107580534
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.13
- 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: Experimental and Statistical Considerations to Avoid False Conclusions in Proteomics Studies Using Differential In-gel Electrophoresis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1074/mcp.m600274-mcp200
- The paper
- Karp, N. A., McCormick, P. S., Russell, M. R., & Lilley, K. S. (2007). Experimental and Statistical Considerations to Avoid False Conclusions in Proteomics Studies Using Differential In-gel Electrophoresis. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.m600274-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.