Selection of Features with Consistent Profiles Improves Relative Protein Quantification in Mass Spectrometry Experiments
Open accessAbstract
In bottom-up mass spectrometry-based proteomics, relative protein quantification is often achieved with data-dependent acquisition (DDA), data-independent acquisition (DIA), or selected reaction monitoring (SRM). These workflows quantify proteins by summarizing the abundances of all the spectral features of the protein ( e.g. precursor ions, transitions or fragments) in a single value per protein per run. When abundances of some features are inconsistent with the overall protein profile (for technological reasons such as interferences, or for biological reasons such as post-translational modifications), the protein-level summaries and the downstream conclusions are undermined. We propose a statistical approach that automatically detects spectral features with such inconsistent patterns. The detected features can be separately investigated, and if necessary, removed from the data set. We evaluated the proposed approach on a series of benchmark-controlled mixtures and biological investigations with DDA, DIA and SRM data acquisitions. The results demonstrated that it could facilitate and complement manual curation of the data. Moreover, it can improve the estimation accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of detecting differentially abundant proteins, and reproducibility of conclusions across different data processing tools. The approach is implemented as an option in the open-source R-based software MSstats.
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 [32]
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 [32]
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 28 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Tsai, T.-H., Choi, M., Banfai, B., Liu, Y., MacLean, B. X., Dunkley, T., & Vitek, O.
- Affiliations
- Northeastern University (US)
- Yale University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
- Venue
- Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 944-959
- ISSN
- 1535-9476 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7261813
- OpenAlex
- W3014677163
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 1.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Molecular & Cellular Proteomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- HHS | NIH | U.S. National Library of Medicine (1R01LM013115–01)
- NSF | BIO | Division of Biological Infrastructure (1759736)
- 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 › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
- Keywords
- relative protein quantification, spectral feature selection, shotgun proteomics, data-dependent acquisition, data-independent acquisition, multiple reaction monitoring, MSstats, differentially abundant proteins, post-translational modification, data curation
- MeSH terms
- Protein Processing, Post-Translational, Proteins, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, Mass Spectrometry, Reproducibility of Results, Databases, Protein, 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