Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21952779›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2011

Evaluation of normalization methods on GeLC-MS/MS label-free spectral counting data to correct for variation during proteomic workflows.

Emine Gokce, Christopher M Shuford, William L Franck, Ralph A Dean, David C Muddiman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The quest of cell surface markers for stem cell therapy.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emine GokceW. M. Keck FT-ICR Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA.
Christopher M Shuford
William L Franck
Ralph A Dean
David C Muddiman
North Carolina State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Normalization of spectral counts (SpCs) in label-free shotgun proteomic approaches is important to achieve reliable relative quantification. Three different SpC normalization methods, total spectral count (TSpC) normalization, normalized spectral abundance factor (NSAF) normalization, and normalization to selected proteins (NSP) were evaluated based on their ability to correct for day-to-day variation between gel-based sample preparation and chromatographic performance. Three spectral counting data sets obtained from the same biological conidia sample of the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae were analyzed by 1D gel and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GeLC-MS/MS). Equine myoglobin and chicken ovalbumin were spiked into the protein extracts prior to 1D-SDS- PAGE as internal protein standards for NSP. The correlation between SpCs of the same proteins across the different data sets was investigated. We report that TSpC normalization and NSAF normalization yielded almost ideal slopes of unity for normalized SpC versus average normalized SpC plots, while NSP did not afford effective corrections of the unnormalized data. Furthermore, when utilizing TSpC normalization prior to relative protein quantification, t-testing and fold-change revealed the cutoff limits for determining real biological change to be a function of the absolute number of SpCs. For instance, we observed the variance decreased as the number of SpCs increased, which resulted in a higher propensity for detecting statistically significant, yet artificial, change for highly abundant proteins. Thus, we suggest applying higher confidence level and lower fold-change cutoffs for proteins with higher SpCs, rather than using a single criterion for the entire data set. By choosing appropriate cutoff values to maintain a constant false positive rate across different protein levels (i.e., SpC levels), it is expected this will reduce the overall false negative rate, particularly for proteins with higher SpCs.

Indexed as

AnimalsChickensChromatography, GelFungal ProteinsHorsesMyoglobinOvalbuminPeptide MappingProteomicsRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsTandem Mass SpectrometryFungal ProteinsMyoglobinOvalbumin

Identifiers

PMID21952779
OpenAlexW2052658651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.