Cited by 3Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene expression and cancer classification

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

PEPA test: fast and powerful differential analysis from relative quantitative proteomics data using shared peptides

Open access
Jacob, Laurent, Combes, Florence, Burger, Thomas·2019·Biostatistics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Summary: We propose a new hypothesis test for the differential abundance of proteins in mass-spectrometry based relative quantification. An important feature of this type of high-throughput analyses is that it involves an enzymatic digestion of the sample proteins into peptides prior to identification and quantification. Due to numerous homology sequences, different proteins can lead to peptides with identical amino acid chains, so that their parent protein is ambiguous. These so-called shared peptides make the protein-level statistical analysis a challenge and are often not accounted for. In this article, we use a linear model describing peptide–protein relationships to build a likelihood ratio test of differential abundance for proteins. We show that the likelihood ratio statistic can be computed in linear time with the number of peptides. We also provide the asymptotic null distribution of a regularized version of our statistic. Experiments on both real and simulated datasets show that our procedures outperforms state-of-the-art methods. The procedures are available via the pepa.test function of the DAPAR Bioconductor R package.

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 · 10.1093/biostatistics/kxy021

Cites

1 of 1 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

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Blein-Nicolas,, 2012, Including shared peptides for estimating protein abundances: a significant improvement for quantitative proteomics, Proteomics, 12, 2797, 10.1002/pmic.201100660 · DOI
  2. Bukhman,, 2008, Design and analysis of quantitative differential proteomics investigations using lc-ms technology, Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, 6, 107, 10.1142/S0219720008003321 · DOI
  3. Choi,, 2014, Msstats: an r package for statistical analysis of quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomic experiments, Bioinformatics, 30, 2524, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu305 · DOI
  4. 2014, Ten years of methods., 973
  5. Dost,, 2012, Accurate mass spectrometry based protein quantification via shared peptides, Journal of Computational Biology, 19, 337, 10.1089/cmb.2009.0267 · DOI
  6. Gerster,, 2014, Statistical approach to protein quantification, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, 13, 666, 10.1074/mcp.M112.025445 · DOI
  7. Giai Gianetto,, 2016, Calibration plot for proteomics: a graphical tool to visually check the assumptions underlying fdr control in quantitative experiments., Proteomics, 16, 29, 10.1002/pmic.201500189 · DOI
  8. Giai Gianetto,, 2016, Uses and misuses of the fudge factor in quantitative discovery proteomics., Proteomics, 16, 1955, 10.1002/pmic.201600132 · DOI
  9. Goeminne,, 2015, Summarization vs peptide-based models in label-free quantitative proteomics: performance, pitfalls, and data analysis guidelines, Journal of Proteome Research, 14, 2457, 10.1021/pr501223t · DOI
  10. Goeminne,, 2016, Peptide-level robust ridge regression improves estimation, sensitivity, and specificity in data-dependent quantitative label-free shotgun proteomics, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, 15, 657, 10.1074/mcp.M115.055897 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Herbrich,, 2013, Statistical inference from multiple itraq experiments without using common reference standards, Journal of Proteome Research, 12, 594, 10.1021/pr300624g · DOI
  12. Hodille,, 2016, Staphylococcal enterotoxin o exhibits cell cycle modulating activity., Frontiers in microbiology, 7, 441, 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00441 · DOI
  13. Jin,, 2007, The effects of shared peptides on protein quantitation in label-free proteomics by lc/ms/ms, Journal of Proteome Research, 7, 164, 10.1021/pr0704175 · DOI
  14. Kammers,, 2015, Detecting significant changes in protein abundance, EuPA Open Proteomics, 7, 11, 10.1016/j.euprot.2015.02.002 · DOI
  15. Le Roux,, 2015, A receptor pair with an integrated decoy converts pathogen disabling of transcription factors to immunity, Cell, 161, 1074, 10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.025 · DOI
  16. Nesvizhskii,, 2005, Interpretation of shotgun proteomic data the protein inference problem, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, 4, 1419, 10.1074/mcp.R500012-MCP200 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Philippe,, 2013, Pandoraviruses: amoeba viruses with genomes up to 2.5 mb reaching that of parasitic eukaryotes, Science, 341, 281, 10.1126/science.1239181 · DOI
  18. Podwojski,, 2010, Peek a peak: a glance at statistics for quantitative label-free proteomics, Expert Review of Proteomics, 7, 249, 10.1586/epr.09.107 · DOI
  19. Silva,, 2006, Absolute quantification of proteins by lcmse a virtue of parallel ms acquisition, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, 5, 144, 10.1074/mcp.M500230-MCP200 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Tusher,, 2001, Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 5116, 10.1073/pnas.091062498 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Wieczorek,, 2017, Dapar & prostar: software to perform statistical analyses in quantitative discovery proteomics, Bioinformatics, 33, 135, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw580 · DOI
  22. Wilks,, 1938, The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 9, 60, 10.1214/aoms/1177732360 · DOI
  23. Zhang,, 2013, Protein analysis by shotgun/bottom-up proteomics, Chemical Reviews, 113, 2343, 10.1021/cr3003533 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Jacob, L., Combes, F., & Burger, T.
Affiliations
  • Lyon 1 Université (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, CEA, INSERM, BIG-BGE, 17 avenue des Martyrs, Grenoble Cedex 9, France
Corresponding author
Jacob, Laurent
Venue
Biostatistics
Published
2018-06-18
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
632-647
ISSN
  • 1465-4644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4357
OpenAlex
W2953168832
Cited by
3
References
1
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biostatistics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-14-CE23-0003-01, ANR-17-CE23-0011-01)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
differential protein abundance, likelihood ratio test, linear models, asymptotic null distribution, hypothesis testing
MeSH terms
Humans, Peptides, Models, Statistical, Proteomics, Biostatistics

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