CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Different Label-Free Techniques for the Semi-Absolute Quantification of Protein Abundance

Open access
Millán-Oropeza, Aarón, Blein-Nicolas, Mélisande, Monnet, Véronique, Zivy, Michel, Henry, Céline·2022·Proteomes
DOI 10.3390/proteomes10010002PMC PMC8788469

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In proteomics, it is essential to quantify proteins in absolute terms if we wish to compare results among studies and integrate high-throughput biological data into genome-scale metabolic models. While labeling target peptides with stable isotopes allow protein abundance to be accurately quantified, the utility of this technique is constrained by the low number of quantifiable proteins that it yields. Recently, label-free shotgun proteomics has become the “gold standard” for carrying out global assessments of biological samples containing thousands of proteins. However, this tool must be further improved if we wish to accurately quantify absolute levels of proteins. Here, we used different label-free quantification techniques to estimate absolute protein abundance in the model yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. More specifically, we evaluated the performance of seven different quantification methods, based either on spectral counting (SC) or extracted-ion chromatogram (XIC), which were applied to samples from five different proteome backgrounds. We also compared the accuracy and reproducibility of two strategies for transforming relative abundance into absolute abundance: a UPS2-based strategy and the total protein approach (TPA). This study mentions technical challenges related to UPS2 use and proposes ways of addressing them, including utilizing a smaller, more highly optimized amount of UPS2. Overall, three SC-based methods (PAI, SAF, and NSAF) yielded the best results because they struck a good balance between experimental performance and protein quantification.

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 · 10.3390/proteomes10010002

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 (A) Sample preparation and (B) the bioinformatic approaches used to determine absolute protein abundances.
Figure 1 (A) Sample preparation and (B) the bioinformatic approaches used to determine absolute protein abundances.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Coefficient of variation (CV) among replicates of the quantification methods (median values; n = 6 samples). Median values are indicated above each boxplot.
Figure 2 Coefficient of variation (CV) among replicates of the quantification methods (median values; n = 6 samples). Median values are indicated above each boxplot.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Absolute error among samples for the different quantification methods as obtained by bootstrapping the data for the spiked UPS2 proteins. Results for the two transformation strategies: the UPS2-based approach (A) and TPA (B). The points are displayed as a function of the different UPS2 protein concentrations (fmol). The inner marks indicate median absolute error (n = 144).
Figure 3 Absolute error among samples for the different quantification methods as obtained by bootstrapping the data for the spiked UPS2 proteins. Results for the two transformation strategies: the UPS2-based approach (A) and TPA (B). The points are displayed as a function of the different UPS2 protein concentrations (fmol). The inner marks indicate median absolute error (n = 144).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 (A) Workflows used for validation. For TPA and the UPS2-based strategy, i refers to a given protein from a given LC-MS/MS sample k. For the standard of reference obtained using the UPS2-based strategy, m represents the slope and a represents the y-intercept. (B) Comparison of the different semi-absolute quantification techniques using the absolute error of the estimated abundance of purified proteins at known concentrations. Results of the t-test comparing the NSAF (UPS2) and PAI (UPS2) methods. The UPS2-based strategy is indicated in the pink boxes. TPA is indicated in the blue boxes.
Figure 4 (A) Workflows used for validation. For TPA and the UPS2-based strategy, i refers to a given protein from a given LC-MS/MS sample k. For the standard of reference obtained using the UPS2-based strategy, m represents the slope and a represents the y-intercept. (B) Comparison of the different semi-absolute quantification techniques using the absolute error of the estimated abundance of purified proteins at known concentrations. Results of the t-test comparing the NSAF (UPS2) and PAI (UPS2) methods. The UPS2-based strategy is indicated in the pink boxes. TPA is indicated in the blue boxes.CC BY · PubMed Central

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 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Ankney, 2018, Relative and Absolute Quantitation in Mass Spectrometry–Based Proteomics, Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem., 11, 49, 10.1146/annurev-anchem-061516-045357 · DOI
  2. Zivy, 2016, Thousand and one ways to quantify and compare protein abundances in label-free bottom-up proteomics, Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)—Proteins Proteom., 1864, 883, 10.1016/j.bbapap.2016.02.019 · DOI
  3. Rappsilber, 2002, Large-Scale Proteomic Analysis of the Human Spliceosome, Genome Res., 12, 1231, 10.1101/gr.473902 · DOI
  4. Ishihama, 2005, Exponentially Modified Protein Abundance Index (emPAI) for Estimation of Absolute Protein Amount in Proteomics by the Number of Sequenced Peptides per Protein, Mol. Cell. Proteom., 4, 1265, 10.1074/mcp.M500061-MCP200 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bubis, 2017, Comparative evaluation of label-free quantification methods for shotgun proteomics, Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom., 31, 606, 10.1002/rcm.7829 · DOI
  6. Dowle, 2016, Comparing the Diagnostic Classification Accuracy of iTRAQ, Peak-Area, Spectral-Counting, and emPAI Methods for Relative Quantification in Expression Proteomics, J. Proteome Res., 15, 3550, 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00308 · DOI
  7. Gerber, 2003, Absolute quantification of proteins and phosphoproteins from cell lysates by tandem MS, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 6940, 10.1073/pnas.0832254100 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Kirkpatrick, 2005, The absolute quantification strategy: A general procedure for the quantification of proteins and post-translational modifications, Methods, 35, 265, 10.1016/j.ymeth.2004.08.018 · DOI
  9. Brun, 2007, Isotope-labeled Protein Standards: Toward Absolute Quantitative Proteomics, Mol. Cell. Proteom., 6, 2139, 10.1074/mcp.M700163-MCP200 · DOI
  10. Mathis, 2019, Protein profile of dairy products: Simultaneous quantification of twenty bovine milk proteins, Int. Dairy J., 97, 167, 10.1016/j.idairyj.2019.01.001 · DOI
  11. Monk, 2014, Optimizing genome-scale network reconstructions, Nat. Biotechnol., 32, 447, 10.1038/nbt.2870 · DOI
  12. Ross, 2004, Multiplexed Protein Quantitation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Using Amine-reactive Isobaric Tagging Reagents, Mol. Cell. Proteom., 3, 1154, 10.1074/mcp.M400129-MCP200 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Choe, 2007, 8-Plex quantitation of changes in cerebrospinal fluid protein expression in subjects undergoing intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, Proteomics, 7, 3651, 10.1002/pmic.200700316 · DOI
  14. Werner, 2012, High-Resolution Enabled TMT 8-plexing, Anal. Chem., 84, 7188, 10.1021/ac301553x · DOI
  15. Ostasiewicz, 2012, Extensive quantitative remodeling of the proteome between normal colon tissue and adenocarcinoma, Mol. Syst. Biol., 8, 611, 10.1038/msb.2012.44 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Lahtvee, 2020, Benchmarking Accuracy and Precision of Intensity-Based Absolute Quantification of Protein Abundances in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Proteomics, 21, 2000093
  17. Vildhede, 2015, Comparative Proteomic Analysis of Human Liver Tissue and Isolated Hepatocytes with a Focus on Proteins Determining Drug Exposure, J. Proteome Res., 14, 3305, 10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00334 · DOI
  18. Belouah, 2019, Modeling Protein Destiny in Developing Fruit, Plant Physiol., 180, 1709, 10.1104/pp.19.00086 · DOI
  19. Belouah, 2020, Transcriptomic and proteomic data in developing tomato fruit, Data Brief, 28, 105015, 10.1016/j.dib.2019.105015 · DOI
  20. Sabatier, 2018, Dynamic Proteomics Reveals High Plasticity of Cellular Proteome: Growth-Related and Drug-Induced Changes in Cancer Cells are comparable, Proteomics, 18, e1800118, 10.1002/pmic.201800118 · DOI
  21. Esoufi, 2015, Characterization of the E. coli proteome and its modifications during growth and ethanol stress, Front. Microbiol., 6, 103
  22. Carpy, 2014, Absolute Proteome and Phosphoproteome Dynamics during the Cell Cycle of Schizosaccharomyces pombe (Fission Yeast), Mol. Cell. Proteom., 13, 1925, 10.1074/mcp.M113.035824 · DOI
  23. Molzahn, 2013, Critical assessment of proteome-wide label-free absolute abundance estimation strategies, Proteomics, 13, 2567, 10.1002/pmic.201300135 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Trudgian, 2011, Comparative evaluation of label-free SINQ normalized spectral index quantitation in the central proteomics facilities pipeline, Proteomics, 11, 2790, 10.1002/pmic.201000800 · DOI
  25. Krey, 2014, Accurate Label-Free Protein Quantitation with High- and Low-Resolution Mass Spectrometers, J. Proteome Res., 13, 1034, 10.1021/pr401017h · DOI
  26. Wu, 2014, Improved accuracy for label-free absolute quantification of proteome by combining the absolute protein expression profiling algorithm and summed tandem mass spectrometric total ion current, Analyst, 139, 138, 10.1039/C3AN01738A · DOI
  27. Smits, 2014, Global absolute quantification reveals tight regulation of protein expression in single Xenopus eggs, Nucleic Acids Res., 42, 9880, 10.1093/nar/gku661 · DOI
  28. Kilani, 2020, Comparative quantitative proteomics of osmotic signal transduction mutants in Botrytis cinerea explain mutant phenotypes and highlight interaction with cAMP and Ca2+ signalling pathways, J. Proteom., 212, 103580, 10.1016/j.jprot.2019.103580 · DOI
  29. Doughty, 2020, Stress-induced expression is enriched for evolutionarily young genes in diverse budding yeasts, Nat. Commun., 11, 2144, 10.1038/s41467-020-16073-3 · DOI
  30. Langella, 2017, X!TandemPipeline: A Tool to Manage Sequence Redundancy for Protein Inference and Phosphosite Identification, J. Proteome Res., 16, 494, 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00632 · DOI
  31. Houel, 2005, PROTICdb: A web-based application to store, track, query, and compare plant proteome data, Proteomics, 5, 2069, 10.1002/pmic.200401111 · DOI
  32. Langella, 2013, Management and dissemination of MS proteomic data with PROTICdb: Example of a quantitative comparison between methods of protein extraction, Proteomics, 13, 1457, 10.1002/pmic.201200564 · DOI
  33. Langella, 2007, The PROTICdb Database for 2-DE Proteomics, Methods Mol. Bio., 355, 279
  34. Vizcaino, 2014, ProteomeXchange provides globally coordinated proteomics data submission and dissemination, Nat. Biotechnol., 32, 223, 10.1038/nbt.2839 · DOI
  35. Zybailov, 2006, Statistical Analysis of Membrane Proteome Expression Changes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, J. Proteome Res., 5, 2339, 10.1021/pr060161n · DOI
  36. Valot, 2011, MassChroQ: A versatile tool for mass spectrometry quantification, Proteomics, 11, 3572, 10.1002/pmic.201100120 · DOI
  37. Henry, 2017, Quantitative Proteomics Analysis Confirmed Oxidative Metabolism Predominates in Streptomyces coelicolor versus Glycolytic Metabolism in Streptomyces lividans, J. Proteome Res., 16, 2597, 10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00163 · DOI
  38. Ning, 2012, Comparative Analysis of Different Label-Free Mass Spectrometry Based Protein Abundance Estimates and Their Correlation with RNA-Seq Gene Expression Data, J. Proteome Res., 11, 2261, 10.1021/pr201052x · DOI
  39. Tsou, 2015, DIA-Umpire: Comprehensive computational framework for data-independent acquisition proteomics, Nat. Methods, 12, 258, 10.1038/nmeth.3255 · DOI
  40. Cook, 2000, Detection of Influential Observation in Linear Regression, Technometrics, 42, 65, 10.1080/00401706.2000.10485981 · DOI
  41. Muntel, 2014, Comprehensive Absolute Quantification of the Cytosolic Proteome of Bacillus subtilis by Data Independent, Parallel Fragmentation in Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (LC/MSE), Mol. Cell. Proteom., 13, 1008, 10.1074/mcp.M113.032631 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Millán-Oropeza, A., Blein-Nicolas, M., Monnet, V., Zivy, M., & Henry, C.
Affiliations
  • AgroParisTech (FR)
  • PAPPSO, INRAE, CNRS, AgroParisTech, GQE-Le Moulon, Université Paris-Saclay, 91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Millán-Oropeza, Aarón
ORCID
Venue
Proteomes
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-01-07
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
2
ISSN
2227-7382 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/proteomes10010002
PMC
PMC8788469
OpenAlex
W4226251097
Cited by
28
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Proteomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research programme and the CHASSY innovation program (720824)
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 › Advanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
Keywords
absolute protein quantification, label-free quantification, spectral counting, extracted ion chromatograms, protein abundance, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, proteomics, genome-scale metabolic models

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: Comparison of Different Label-Free Techniques for the Semi-Absolute Quantification of Protein Abundance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/proteomes10010002
The paper
Millán-Oropeza, A., Blein-Nicolas, M., Monnet, V., Zivy, M., & Henry, C. (2022). Comparison of Different Label-Free Techniques for the Semi-Absolute Quantification of Protein Abundance. Proteomes. https://doi.org/10.3390/proteomes10010002