Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28724900›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Enhanced differential expression statistics for data-independent acquisition proteomics.

Tomi Suomi, Laura L Elo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Linking Virulence and Iron Limitation Response inJournal of proteome research · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Integrated genomic and proteomic analysis of the mouse-adaptedCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. The global proteome ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Tomi SuomiTurku Centre for Biotechnology, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, FI-20520, Turku, Finland. tomi.suomi@utu.fi.
Laura L EloTurku Centre for Biotechnology, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, FI-20520, Turku, Finland. laura.elo@utu.fi.

Funding

European Research Council 677943
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We describe a new reproducibility-optimization method ROPECA for statistical analysis of proteomics data with a specific focus on the emerging data-independent acquisition (DIA) mass spectrometry technology. ROPECA optimizes the reproducibility of statistical testing on peptide-level and aggregates the peptide-level changes to determine differential protein-level expression. Using a 'gold standard' spike-in data and a hybrid proteome benchmark data we show the competitive performance of ROPECA over conventional protein-based analysis as well as state-of-the-art peptide-based tools especially in DIA data with consistent peptide measurements. Furthermore, we also demonstrate the improved accuracy of our method in clinical studies using proteomics data from a longitudinal human twin study.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingStatistics as TopicDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansPeptidesProteomeProteomicsReproducibility of ResultsROC CurvePeptidesProteome

Identifiers

PMID28724900
PMCPMC5517573

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.