ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Is Protein Quantification and Physical Normalization Always Necessary in Proteomics?
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dogma suggests protein quantification is a pre-requisite to LC-MS/MS based proteomics studies. Such quantification allows a standardized ratio of sample to digestion enzyme and enables physical normalization of protein digest loaded onto the mass spectrometer for analysis. Most proteomics studies include these steps. However, there are significant costs in time, money and experimental complexity, associated with performing protein quantification and physical normalization for every sample, especially for larger studies. Proteomics data analysis pipelines typically include computational normalization strategies to compensate for unavoidable systematic biases. These strategies also have the potential to compensate for avoidable variation such as omitting sample amount normalization. Here we investigate the effects of either physically normalizing the amount of protein for each individual sample or leaving it unnormalized. Our results show the relationship between increased protein amount variation in sample input, and the variance of quantified relative abundances of peptides and proteins output after data analysis. The experiments presented here suggest that protein quantification and physical normalization steps can be omitted from some quantitative proteomic experiments without incurring an unacceptable increase in measurement variability after computational normalization has been applied. This work will enable important time and cost saving optimizations to be made to many proteomics workflows.
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.