Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27302888›Full record

ArticleMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP2016

CONSTANd : A Normalization Method for Isobaric Labeled Spectra by Constrained Optimization.

Evelyne Maes, Wahyu Wijaya Hadiwikarta, Inge Mertens, Geert Baggerman, Jef Hooyberghs, Dirk Valkenborg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Yolk-deprivedLife science alliance · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. A Primer and Guidelines for Shotgun Proteomic Analysis in Non-model Organisms.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Proteomic Analysis of the Cell Cycle of Procylic FormMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2018
    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

6 authors.

Evelyne MaesFrom the: ‡Applied Bio & molecular Systems, VITO, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium; §Center for Proteomics, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium;
Wahyu Wijaya HadiwikartaFrom the: ‡Applied Bio & molecular Systems, VITO, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium;
Inge MertensFrom the: ‡Applied Bio & molecular Systems, VITO, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium; §Center for Proteomics, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium;
Geert BaggermanFrom the: ‡Applied Bio & molecular Systems, VITO, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium; §Center for Proteomics, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium;
Jef HooyberghsFrom the: ‡Applied Bio & molecular Systems, VITO, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium; ¶Theoretical Physics, Hasselt University, Agoralaan 1, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium;
Dirk ValkenborgFrom the: ‡Applied Bio & molecular Systems, VITO, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium; §Center for Proteomics, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium; ‖Center for Statistics, Hasselt University, Agoralaan 1, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium dirk.valkenborg@vito.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In quantitative proteomics applications, the use of isobaric labels is a very popular concept as they allow for multiplexing, such that peptides from multiple biological samples are quantified simultaneously in one mass spectrometry experiment. Although this multiplexing allows that peptide intensities are affected by the same amount of instrument variability, systematic effects during sample preparation can also introduce a bias in the quantitation measurements. Therefore, normalization methods are required to remove this systematic error. At present, a few dedicated normalization methods for isobaric labeled data are at hand. Most of these normalization methods include a framework for statistical data analysis and rely on ANOVA or linear mixed models. However, for swift quality control of the samples or data visualization a simple normalization technique is sufficient. To this aim, we present a new and easy-to-use data-driven normalization method, named CONSTANd. The CONSTANd method employs constrained optimization and prior information about the labeling strategy to normalize the peptide intensities. Further, it allows maintaining the connection to any biological effect while reducing the systematic and technical errors. As a result, peptides can not only be compared directly within a multiplexed experiment, but are also comparable between other isobaric labeled datasets from multiple experimental designs that are normalized by the CONSTANd method, without the need to include a reference sample in every experimental setup. The latter property is especially useful when more than six, eight or ten (TMT/iTRAQ) biological samples are required to detect differential peptides with sufficient statistical power and to optimally make use of the multiplexing capacity of isobaric labels.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsData Interpretation, StatisticalPeptide FragmentsProteomicsStaining and LabelingTandem Mass SpectrometryPeptide Fragments

Identifiers

PMID27302888
PMCPMC4974351

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.