Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25888384›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015

Comparative proteomics: assessment of biological variability and dataset comparability.

Sa Rang Kim, Tuong Vi Nguyen, Na Ri Seo, Seunghup Jung, Hyun Joo An, David A Mills, Jae Han Kim

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

7 authors.

Sa Rang KimDepartment of Food and Nutrition, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, 305-764, South Korea. ksr7744@cnu.ac.kr.
Tuong Vi NguyenDepartment of Food and Nutrition, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, 305-764, South Korea. t.vi.nguyen@gmail.com.
Na Ri SeoGraduate School of Analytical Science and Technology, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, 305-764, South Korea. snr85@cnu.ac.kr.
Seunghup JungGraduate School of Analytical Science and Technology, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, 305-764, South Korea. shjeong0512@gmail.com.
Hyun Joo AnGraduate School of Analytical Science and Technology, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, 305-764, South Korea. hjan@cnu.ac.kr.
David A MillsRobert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science, Department of Food Science, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. damills@ucdavis.edu.
Jae Han KimDepartment of Food and Nutrition, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, 305-764, South Korea. jaykim@cnu.ac.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparative proteomics in bacteria are often hampered by the differential nature of dataset quality and/or inherent biological deviations. Although common practice compensates by reproducing and normalizing datasets from a single sample, the degree of certainty is limited in comparison of multiple dataset. To surmount these limitations, we introduce a two-step assessment criterion using: (1) the relative number of total spectra (R TS ) to determine if two LC-MS/MS datasets are comparable and (2) nine glycolytic enzymes as internal standards for a more accurate calculation of relative amount of proteins. Lactococcus lactis HR279 and JHK24 strains expressing high or low levels (respectively) of green fluorescent protein (GFP) were used for the model system. GFP abundance was determined by spectral counting and direct fluorescence measurements. Statistical analysis determined relative GFP quantity obtained from our approach matched values obtained from fluorescence measurements.

resultsL. lactis HR279 and JHK24 demonstrates two datasets with an R TS value less than 1.4 accurately reflects relative differences in GFP levels between high and low expression strains. Without prior consideration of R TS and the use of internal standards, the relative increase in GFP calculated by spectral counting method was 3.92 ± 1.14 fold, which is not correlated with the value determined by the direct fluorescence measurement (2.86 ± 0.42 fold) with the p = 0.024. In contrast, 2.88 ± 0.92 fold was obtained by our approach showing a statistically insignificant difference (p = 0.95).

conclusionsOur two-step assessment demonstrates a useful approach to: (1) validate the comparability of two mass spectrometric datasets and (2) accurately calculate the relative amount of proteins between proteomic datasets.

Indexed as

Databases, ProteinBacterial ProteinsChromatography, LiquidGreen Fluorescent ProteinsLactobacillusProteomicsReference StandardsTandem Mass SpectrometryBacterial ProteinsGreen Fluorescent Proteins

Identifiers

PMID25888384
PMCPMC4704264

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.