The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical Similarities between Transcriptomics and Quantitative Shotgun Proteomics Data
Open accessAbstract
If the large collection of microarray-specific statistical tools was applicable to the analysis of quantitative shotgun proteomics datasets, it would certainly foster an important advancement of proteomics research. Here we analyze two large multidimensional protein identification technology datasets, one containing eight replicates of the soluble fraction of a yeast whole-cell lysate and one containing nine replicates of a human immunoprecipitate, to test whether normalized spectral abundance factor (NSAF) values share substantially similar statistical properties with transcript abundance values from Affymetrix GeneChip data. First we show similar dynamic range and distribution properties of these two types of numeric values. Next we show that the standard deviation (S.D.) of a protein's NSAF values was dependent on the average NSAF value of the protein itself, following a power law. This relationship can be modeled by a power law global error model (PLGEM), initially developed to describe the variance-versus-mean dependence that exists in GeneChip data. PLGEM parameters obtained from NSAF datasets proved to be surprisingly similar to the typical parameters observed in GeneChip datasets. The most important common feature identified by this approach was that, although in absolute terms the S.D. of replicated abundance values increases as a function of increasing average abundance, the coefficient of variation, a relative measure of variability, becomes progressively smaller under the same conditions. We next show that PLGEM parameters were reasonably stable to decreasing numbers of replicates. We finally illustrate one possible application of PLGEM in the identification of differentially abundant proteins that might potentially outperform standard statistical tests. In summary, we believe that this body of work lays the foundation for the application of microarray-specific tools in the analysis of NSAF datasets.
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
Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository
Edgar, R. (2002) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/30.1.207 · Cited by 13,288
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
Mass spectrometry-based proteomics
Aebersold, R., & Mann, M. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01511 · Cited by 6,955
Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags
Gygi, S. P., Rist, B., Gerber, S. A., Turecek, F., Gelb, M. H., & Aebersold, R. (1999) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/13690 · Cited by 4,683 · cited 1×
“Until very recently, for example, LC-MS/MS (also known as “shotgun”) proteomics was not even granted the definition of being a quantitative technique unless it was coupled with specific labeling methods that would make it suitable for relative quantification of proteins in an equimolar mixture of two samples of intere…”
MethodHuber, W., von Heydebreck, A., Sültmann, H., Poustka, A., & Vingron, M. (2002) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/18.suppl_1.s96 · Cited by 2,440
Reverse engineering of biological complexity
Csete, M. E., & Doyle, J. C. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1069981 · Cited by 1,215
RB acute loss induces centrosome amplification and aneuploidy in murine primary fibroblasts
Iovino, F., Lentini, L., Amato, A., & Di Leonardo, A. (2006) · Molecular Cancer · doi:10.1186/1476-4598-5-38 · Cited by 94
Cited by
Protein Analysis by Shotgun/Bottom-up Proteomics
Zhang, Y., Fonslow, B. R., Shan, B., Baek, M.-C., & Yates, J. R. (2013) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr3003533 · Cited by 1,491
Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: critical review update from 2007 to the present
Bantscheff, M., Lemeer, S., Savitski, M. M., & Kuster, B. (2012) · Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · doi:10.1007/s00216-012-6203-4 · Cited by 801
High-fat diet alters gut microbiota physiology in mice
Daniel, H., Gholami, A. M., Berry, D., Desmarchelier, C., Hahne, H., Loh, G., Mondot, S., Lepage, P., Rothballer, M., Walker, A., et al. (2014) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2013.155 · Cited by 678
Role of spectral counting in quantitative proteomics
Lundgren, D. H., Hwang, S.-I., Wu, L., & Han, D. K. (2010) · Expert Review of Proteomics · doi:10.1586/epr.09.69 · Cited by 428
Significance Analysis of Spectral Count Data in Label-free Shotgun Proteomics
Choi, H., Fermin, D., & Nesvizhskii, A. I. (2008) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m800203-mcp200 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Pavelka, N., Fournier, M. L., Swanson, S. K., Pelizzola, M., Ricciardi-Castagnoli, P., Florens, L., & Washburn, M. P.
- Venue
- Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-04
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 631-644
- ISSN
- 1535-9476 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2116807043
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 5.23
- 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: Statistical Similarities between Transcriptomics and Quantitative Shotgun Proteomics Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1074/mcp.m700240-mcp200
- The paper
- Pavelka, N., Fournier, M. L., Swanson, S. K., Pelizzola, M., Ricciardi-Castagnoli, P., Florens, L., & Washburn, M. P. (2008). Statistical Similarities between Transcriptomics and Quantitative Shotgun Proteomics Data. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.m700240-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.