Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24475266›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Evaluating strategies to normalise biological replicates of Western blot data.

Andrea Degasperi, Marc R Birtwistle, Natalia Volinsky, Jens Rauch, Walter Kolch, Boris N Kholodenko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 147 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
147citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

147 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Peripheral complement C4 protein in schizophrenia: Association with gene copy number and immune cell subtypes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. ApoJ regulates endothelial lipase activity and stability.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. LPS-induced inflammation differentially affects endogenous CaMolecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

87 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Andrea DegasperiSystems Biology Ireland, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Marc R BirtwistleDepartment of Pharmacology and Systems Therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States of America.
Natalia VolinskySystems Biology Ireland, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Jens RauchSystems Biology Ireland, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Walter KolchSystems Biology Ireland, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland ; Conway Institute of Biomolecular & Biomedical Research, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland ; School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Boris N KholodenkoSystems Biology Ireland, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland ; Conway Institute of Biomolecular & Biomedical Research, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland ; School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.

Funding

System Biology Center in New YorkP50GM071558 · NIGMS · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI ZAPH, SUSANA NEVES · 2007 to 2017
$22.8M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Western blot data are widely used in quantitative applications such as statistical testing and mathematical modelling. To ensure accurate quantitation and comparability between experiments, Western blot replicates must be normalised, but it is unclear how the available methods affect statistical properties of the data. Here we evaluate three commonly used normalisation strategies: (i) by fixed normalisation point or control; (ii) by sum of all data points in a replicate; and (iii) by optimal alignment of the replicates. We consider how these different strategies affect the coefficient of variation (CV) and the results of hypothesis testing with the normalised data. Normalisation by fixed point tends to increase the mean CV of normalised data in a manner that naturally depends on the choice of the normalisation point. Thus, in the context of hypothesis testing, normalisation by fixed point reduces false positives and increases false negatives. Analysis of published experimental data shows that choosing normalisation points with low quantified intensities results in a high normalised data CV and should thus be avoided. Normalisation by sum or by optimal alignment redistributes the raw data uncertainty in a mean-dependent manner, reducing the CV of high intensity points and increasing the CV of low intensity points. This causes the effect of normalisations by sum or optimal alignment on hypothesis testing to depend on the mean of the data tested; for high intensity points, false positives are increased and false negatives are decreased, while for low intensity points, false positives are decreased and false negatives are increased. These results will aid users of Western blotting to choose a suitable normalisation strategy and also understand the implications of this normalisation for subsequent hypothesis testing.

Indexed as

Research DesignBlotting, WesternData Interpretation, StatisticalElectrophoresis, Polyacrylamide GelHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMCF-7 Cells

Identifiers

PMID24475266
PMCPMC3903630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.