Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 167

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 access
Pavelka, Norman, Fournier, Marjorie L., Swanson, Selene K., Pelizzola, Mattia, Ricciardi-Castagnoli, Paola, Florens, Laurence, Washburn, Michael P.·2008·Molecular & Cellular Proteomics

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1074/mcp.m700240-mcp200

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 167

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.