ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2010
The necessity of adjusting tests of protein category enrichment in discovery proteomics.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- LysR-type transcriptional regulator TtdR regulates both ethylene glycol and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) metabolism in Pseudomonas umsongensis GO16.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- MOPED enables discoveries through consistently processed proteomics data.Journal of proteome research · 2014Article
- 1D and 2D annotation enrichment: a statistical method integrating quantitative proteomics with complementary high-throughput data.BMC bioinformatics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationEnrichment tests are used in high-throughput experimentation to measure the association between gene or protein expression and membership in groups or pathways. The Fisher's exact test is commonly used. We specifically examined the associations produced by the Fisher test between protein identification by mass spectrometry discovery proteomics, and their Gene Ontology (GO) term assignments in a large yeast dataset. We found that direct application of the Fisher test is misleading in proteomics due to the bias in mass spectrometry to preferentially identify proteins based on their biochemical properties. False inference about associations can be made if this bias is not corrected. Our method adjusts Fisher tests for these biases and produces associations more directly attributable to protein expression rather than experimental bias.
resultsUsing logistic regression, we modeled the association between protein identification and GO term assignments while adjusting for identification bias in mass spectrometry. The model accounts for five biochemical properties of peptides: (i) hydrophobicity, (ii) molecular weight, (iii) transfer energy, (iv) beta turn frequency and (v) isoelectric point. The model was fit on 181 060 peptides from 2678 proteins identified in 24 yeast proteomics datasets with a 1% false discovery rate. In analyzing the association between protein identification and their GO term assignments, we found that 25% (134 out of 544) of Fisher tests that showed significant association (q-value ≤0.05) were non-significant after adjustment using our model. Simulations generating yeast protein sets enriched for identification propensity show that unadjusted enrichment tests were biased while our approach worked well.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.