ArticleJournal of proteome research2015
Experimental Null Method to Guide the Development of Technical Procedures and to Control False-Positive Discovery in Quantitative Proteomics.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scaffold-Free Functional Deconvolution Identifies Clinically Relevant Metastatic Melanoma EV Biomarkers.Cancers · 2025Article
- Systems Pharmacodynamic Model of Combined Gemcitabine and Trabectedin in Pancreatic Cancer Cells. Part I: Effects on Signal Transduction Pathways Related to Tumor GrowthJournal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2024Article
- Species-Deconvolved Proteomics forJournal of proteome research · 2023Article
- High-quality and robust protein quantification in large clinical/pharmaceutical cohorts with IonStar proteomics investigation.Nature protocols · 2023Review
- Parallel, High-Quality Proteomic and Targeted Metabolomic Quantification Using Laser Capture Microdissected Tissues.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Ultra-High-Resolution IonStar Strategy Enhancing Accuracy and Precision of MS1-Based Proteomics and an Extensive Comparison with State-of-the-Art SWATH-MS in Large-Cohort Quantification.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Potential Neuroprotective Mechanisms of Methamphetamine Treatment in Traumatic Brain Injury Defined by Large-Scale IonStar-Based Quantitative Proteomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Quantitative proteomic and phosphoproteomic profiling of ischemic myocardial stunning in swine.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2020Article
- MS1 ion current-based quantitative proteomics: A promising solution for reliable analysis of large biological cohorts.Mass spectrometry reviews · 2019Review
- IonStar enables high-precision, low-missing-data proteomics quantification in large biological cohorts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Temporal Effects of Combined Birinapant and Paclitaxel on Pancreatic Cancer Cells InvestigatedMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2018Article
- GPR56/ADGRG1 regulates development and maintenance of peripheral myelin.The Journal of experimental medicine · 2018Article
- An IonStar Experimental Strategy for MS1 Ion Current-Based Quantification Using Ultrahigh-Field Orbitrap: Reproducible, In-Depth, and Accurate Protein Measurement in Large Cohorts.Journal of proteome research · 2017Article
- Quantitative proteomic profiling of paired cancerous and normal colon epithelial cells isolated freshly from colorectal cancer patients.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 2017Article
- Large-Scale, Ion-Current-Based Proteomic Investigation of the Rat Striatal Proteome in a Model of Short- and Long-Term Cocaine Withdrawal.Journal of proteome research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Comprehensive and accurate evaluation of data quality and false-positive biomarker discovery is critical to direct the method development/optimization for quantitative proteomics, which nonetheless remains challenging largely due to the high complexity and unique features of proteomic data. Here we describe an experimental null (EN) method to address this need. Because the method experimentally measures the null distribution (either technical or biological replicates) using the same proteomic samples, the same procedures and the same batch as the case-vs-contol experiment, it correctly reflects the collective effects of technical variability (e.g., variation/bias in sample preparation, LC-MS analysis, and data processing) and project-specific features (e.g., characteristics of the proteome and biological variation) on the performances of quantitative analysis. To show a proof of concept, we employed the EN method to assess the quantitative accuracy and precision and the ability to quantify subtle ratio changes between groups using different experimental and data-processing approaches and in various cellular and tissue proteomes. It was found that choices of quantitative features, sample size, experimental design, data-processing strategies, and quality of chromatographic separation can profoundly affect quantitative precision and accuracy of label-free quantification. The EN method was also demonstrated as a practical tool to determine the optimal experimental parameters and rational ratio cutoff for reliable protein quantification in specific proteomic experiments, for example, to identify the necessary number of technical/biological replicates per group that affords sufficient power for discovery. Furthermore, we assessed the ability of EN method to estimate levels of false-positives in the discovery of altered proteins, using two concocted sample sets mimicking proteomic profiling using technical and biological replicates, respectively, where the true-positives/negatives are known and span a wide concentration range. It was observed that the EN method correctly reflects the null distribution in a proteomic system and accurately measures false altered proteins discovery rate (FADR). In summary, the EN method provides a straightforward, practical, and accurate alternative to statistics-based approaches for the development and evaluation of proteomic experiments and can be universally adapted to various types of quantitative techniques.
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.