Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35726249›Full record

ArticleACS measurement science au2022

Prior Signal Acquisition Software Versions for Orbitrap Underestimate Low Isobaric Mass Tag Intensities, Without Detriment to Differential Abundance Experiments.

Tom S Smith, Anna Andrejeva, Josie Christopher, Oliver M Crook, Mohamed Elzek, Kathryn S Lilley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS measurement science au, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Tom S SmithMRC Toxicology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QR, U.K.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0697-8777
Anna AndrejevaDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QW, U.K.
Josie ChristopherDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QW, U.K.
Oliver M CrookDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3LB, U.K.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5669-8506
Mohamed ElzekMRC Toxicology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QR, U.K.
Kathryn S LilleyDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QW, U.K.

Funding

MRF_ MRF-077-0002-S-MRCTXWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tandem mass tags (TMTs) enable simple and accurate quantitative proteomics for multiplexed samples by relative quantification of tag reporter ions. Orbitrap quantification of reporter ions has been associated with a characteristic notch region in intensity distribution, within which few reporter intensities are recorded. This has been resolved in version 3 of the instrument acquisition software Tune. However, 47% of Orbitrap Fusion, Lumos, or Eclipse submissions to PRIDE were generated using prior software versions. To quantify the impact of the notch on existing quantitative proteomics data, we generated a mixed species benchmark and acquired quantitative data using Tune versions 2 and 3. Intensities below the notch are predominantly underestimated with Tune version 2, leading to overestimation of the true differences in intensities between samples. However, when summarizing reporter ion intensities to higher-level features, such as peptides and proteins, few features are significantly affected. Targeted removal of spectra with reporter ion intensities below the notch is not beneficial for differential peptide or protein testing. Overall, we find that the systematic quantification bias associated with the notch is not detrimental for a typical proteomics experiment.

Identifiers

PMID35726249
PMCPMC9204819

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.