Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26908370›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

A Method and On-Line Tool for Maximum Likelihood Calibration of Immunoblots and Other Measurements That Are Quantified in Batches.

Steven S Andrews, Suzannah Rutherford

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Steven S AndrewsBasic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Suzannah RutherfordBasic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · US

Funding

Systems biology of signal control in yeastR01GM086615 · NIGMS · VTT/MSI MOLECULAR SCIENCES INSTITUTE · PI BRENT, ROGER, YU, RICHARD C. · 2009 to 2012
$2.3M
Dynamics of gradient sensing in single cellsR01GM097479 · NIGMS · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI BRENT, ROGER · 2011 to 2014
$2.1M
Genetic Architecture of Hsp90-buffered variationR01GM068873 · NIGMS · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI RUTHERFORD, SUZANNAH · 2003 to 2009
$2.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM068873NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM068873NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM086615NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM086615NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM097479NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM097479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experimental measurements require calibration to transform measured signals into physically meaningful values. The conventional approach has two steps: the experimenter deduces a conversion function using measurements on standards and then calibrates (or normalizes) measurements on unknown samples with this function. The deduction of the conversion function from only the standard measurements causes the results to be quite sensitive to experimental noise. It also implies that any data collected without reliable standards must be discarded. Here we show that a "1-step calibration method" reduces these problems for the common situation in which samples are measured in batches, where a batch could be an immunoblot (Western blot), an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), a sequence of spectra, or a microarray, provided that some sample measurements are replicated across multiple batches. The 1-step method computes all calibration results iteratively from all measurements. It returns the most probable values for the sample compositions under the assumptions of a statistical model, making them the maximum likelihood predictors. It is less sensitive to measurement error on standards and enables use of some batches that do not include standards. In direct comparison of both real and simulated immunoblot data, the 1-step method consistently exhibited smaller errors than the conventional "2-step" method. These results suggest that the 1-step method is likely to be most useful for cases where experimenters want to analyze existing data that are missing some standard measurements and where experimenters want to extract the best results possible from their data. Open source software for both methods is available for download or on-line use.

Indexed as

CalibrationData Interpretation, StatisticalSoftwareEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayImmunoblottingModels, StatisticalProteinsReproducibility of ResultsWorkflowProteins

Identifiers

PMID26908370
PMCPMC4764494
OpenAlexW2952144661

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.