Information quality in proteomics

Briefings in Bioinformatics

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 174-188

  Stead, David A ^a   Paton, Norman W ^b   Missier, Paolo ^b   Embury, Suzanne M ^b   Hedeler, Cornelia ^b   Jin, Binling ^e   Brown, Alistair J P ^c   Preece, Alun ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d Departmnt of Computing Science   (United Kingdom)

^e NONE

Author keywords

Information management; Information quality; Proteomics; Quality assessment; Standards

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPLEX FORMATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION STORAGE; INTERNET; LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; MATRIX ASSISTED LASER DESORPTION IONIZATION TIME OF FLIGHT MASS SPECTROMETRY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PROTEIN DATABASE; PROTEOMICS; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY; TWO DIMENSIONAL GEL ELECTROPHORESIS;

DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; ELECTROPHORESIS, GEL, TWO-DIMENSIONAL; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; MASS SPECTROMETRY; PROTEINS; PROTEOMICS; QUALITY CONTROL; SOFTWARE;

EID: 42049089764     PISSN: 14675463     EISSN: 14774054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbn004     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Rocke DM. Design and analysis of experiments with high throughput biological assay data. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2004; 15:703-13.
2. Biron DG, Brun C, Lefevre T, et al. The pitfalls of proteomics experiments without the correct use of bioinformatics tools. Proteomics 2006;6:5577-96.
3. Palagi PM, Hernandez P, Walther D, et al. Proteome informatics I: bioinformatics tools for processing experimental data. Proteomics 2006;6:5435-44.
4. Gorg A, Weiss W, Dunn MJ. Current two-dimensional electrophoresis technology for proteomics. Proteomics 2004; 4:3665-85.
5. Aebersold R, Mann M. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Nature 2003;422:198-207.
6. Carr S, Aebersold R, Baldwin M, et al. The need for guidelines in publication of peptide and protein identification data. Mol Cell Proteomics 2004;3:531-3.
7. Souchelnytskyi S. Bridging proteomics and systems biology what are the roads to be traveled? Proteomics 2005; 5:4123-37.
8. Bell AW, Nilsson T, Kearney RE, et al. The protein microscope: incorporating mass spectrometry into cell biology. Nat Methods 2007;4:783-4.
9. Lexander H, Hellman U, Palmberg C, et al. Evaluation of two sample preparation methods for prostate proteome analysis. Proteomics 2006;6:3918-25.
10. Thongboonkerd V, Chutipongtanate S, Kanlaya R. Systematic evaluation of sample preparation methods for gel-based human urinary proteomics: quantity, quality, and variability. J Proteome Res 2006;5 183-91.
11. Schwarz K, Fiedler T, Fischer RJ, et al. A standard operating procedure (SOP) for the preparation of intra- and extracellular proteins of Clostridium acetobutylicum for proteome analysis. J Microbiol Methods 2007;68:396-402.
12. Hunt SM, Thomas MR, Sebastian LT, et al. Optimal replication and the importance of experimental design for gel-based quantitative proteomics. J Proteome Res 2005;4: 809-19.
13. Karp NA, Spencer M, Lindsay H, et al. Impact of replicate types on proteomics expression analysis. J Proteome Res 2005; 4 1867-71.
14. Gorg A, Postel W, Gunther S. The current state of two-dimensional electrophoresis with immobilized pH gradients. Electrophoresis 1988;9:531-46.
15. Yin Z, Stead D, Selway L, et al. Proteomic response to amino acid starvation in Candida albicans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proteomics 2004;4:2425-36.
16. Zivy M. Quantitative analysis of 2D gels. Methods Mol Biol 2007; 355:175-94.
17. Karp NA, Lilley KS. Maximising sensitivity for detecting changes in protein expression: Experimental design using minimal CyDyes. Proteomics 2005;5:3105-15.
18. Marengo E, Robotti E, Bobba M, et al. Multivariate statistical tools applied to the characterization of the proteomic profiles of two human lymphoma cell lines by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Electrophoresis 2006;27: 484-94.
19. Engkilde K, Jacobsen S, Sondergaard I. Multivariate data analysis of proteome data. Methods Mol Biol 2007;355: 195-210.
20. Hu J, Coombes KR, Morris JS, et al. The importance of experimental design in proteomic mass spectrometry experiments: Some cautionary tales. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic 2005;3:322-31.
21. Lim H, Eng J, Yates JR 3rd, et al. Identification of 2D-gel proteins: A comparison of MALDI/TOF peptide mass mapping to μ LC-ESI tandem mass spectrometry. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 2003;14 957-70.
22. Stead DA, Preece A, Brown AJP. Universal metrics for quality assessment of protein identifications by mass spectrometry. Mol Cell Proteomics 2006;5:1205-11.
23. Aldente. http://ca.expasy.org/tools/aldente/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
24. Tuloup M, Hernandez C, Coro I, et al. Aldente and BioGraph: An improved peptide mass fingerprinting protein identification environment. Swiss Proteomics Society 2003 Congress: Understanding Biological Systems through Proteomics, Basel, Switzerland, 2-4 December, 2003, Ed. FontisMedia (ISBN 2-88476-004-0), 174-176.
25. Mascot. http://www.matrixscience.com/search_forrm_select.html/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
26. ProFound. http://prowl.rockefeller.edu/prowl-cgi/profound.exe/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
27. Chamrad DC, Korting G, Stuhler K, et al. Evaluation of algorithms for protein identification from sequence databases using mass spectrometry data. Proteomics 2004;4: 619-28.
28. Hunt DF, Yates JR 3rd, Shabanowitz J, et al. Protein sequencing by tandem mass spectrometry. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1986;83 6233-7.
29. Nesvizhskii AI. Protein identification by tandem mass spectrometry and sequence database searching. Methods Mol Biol 2007;367 87-119.
30. Mann M, Wilm M. Error-tolerant identification of peptides in sequence databases by peptide sequence tags. Anal Chem 1994;66:4390-9.
31. SEQUEST. http://fields.scripps.edu/sequest/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
32. Boutilier K, Ross M, Podtelejnikov AV, et al. Comparison of different search engines using validated MS/MS test datasets. Anal Chim Acta 2005;534:11-20.
33. Kapp EA, Schutz F, Connolly LM, et al. An evaluation, comparison, and accurate benchmarking of several publicly available MS/MS seareh algorithms: Sensitivity and specificity analysis. Proteomics 2005;5:3475-90.
34. Phenyx main site. http://www.phenyx-ms.com/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
35. Phenyx public server. http://phenyx.vital-it.ch/pwi/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
36. OMSSA. http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omssa/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
37. X! Tandem. http://www.thegpm.org/TANDEM/index.html/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
38. Orchard S, Jones P, Taylor C, et al. Proteomic data exchange and storage: The need for common standards and public repositories. Methods Mol Biol 2007;367:261-70.
39. Bern M, Goldberg D, McDonald WH, et al. Automatic quality assessment of peptide tandem mass spectra. Bioinformatics 2004; 20(Suppl 1):I49-54.
40. Flikka K, Martens L, Vandekerckhove J, et al. Improving the reliability and throughput of mass spectrometry-based proteomics by spectrum quality filtering. Proteomics 2006;6: 2086-94.
41. Nesvizhskii AI, Roos FF, Grossmann J, et al. Dynamic spectrum quality assessment and iterative computational analysis of shotgun proteomic data: Toward more efficient identification of post-translational modifications, sequence polymorphisms, and novel peptides. Mol Cell Proteomics 2006;5:652-70.
42. Wong JW, Sullivan MJ, Cartwright HM, et al. msmsEval: Tandem mass spectral quality assignment for high-throughput proteomics. BMC Bioinformatics 2007;8:51.
43. Ulintz PJ, Zhu J, Qin ZS, et al. Improved classification of mass spectrometry database search results using newer machine learning approaches. Mol Cell Proteomics 2006;5:497-509.
44. Shadforth I, Dunkley T, Lilley K, et al. Confident protein identification using like average peptide score method coupled with search-specific, ab initio thresholds. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 2005;19:3363-8.
45. Savitski MM, Nielsen ML, Zubarev RA. New data base-independent, sequence tag-based scoring of peptide MS/MS data validates Mowse scores, recovers below threshold data, singles out modified peptides, and assesses the quality of MS/MS techniques. Mol Cell Proteomics 2005; 4 1180-8.
46. Piening BD, Wang P, Bangur CS, et al. Quality control metrics for LC-MS feature detection tools demonstrated on Saccharomyces cerevisiae proteomic profiles. J Proteome Res 2006;5:1527-34.
47. Global Proteome Machine. http://gpmdb.thegpm.org/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
48. PeptideAtlas. http://www.peptideatlas.org/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
49. Desiere F, Deutsch EW, King NL, et al. The PeptideAtlas project. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:D655-8.
50. Feng J, Naiman DQ, Cooper B. Probability-based pattern recognition and statistical framework for randomization: Modeling tandem mass spectrum/ peptide sequence false match frequencies. Bioinformatics 2007; 23:2210-7.
51. Higgs RE, Knierman MD, Freeman AB, et al. Estimating the statistical significance of peptide identifications from shotgun proteomics experiments. J Proteome Res 2007;6: 1758-67.
52. Huttlin EL, Hegeman AD, Harms AC, et al. Prediction of error associated with false-positive rate determination for peptide identification in large-scale proteomics experiments using a combined reverse and forward peptide sequence database strategy. J Proteome Res 2007;6:392-8.
53. Wilkins MR, Appel RD, Van Eyk JE, et al. Guidelines for the next 10 years of proteomics. Proteomics 2006;6:4-8.
54. Ong SE, Mann M. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics turns quantitative. Nat Chem Biol 2005;1:252-62.
55. Yan W, Chen SS. Mass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomic profiling. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic 2005;4: 27-38.
56. Chen X, Sun L, Yu Y, et al. Amino acid-coded tagging approaches in quantitative proteomics. Expert Rev Proteomics 2007;4:25-37.
57. Ong SE, Blagoev B, Kratchmarova I, et al. Stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture, SILAC, as a simple and accurate approach to expression proteomics. Mol Gell Proteomics 2002;1:376-86.
58. Schmidt A, Kellermann J, Lottspeich F. A novel strategy for quantitative proteomics using isotope-coded protein labels. Proteomics 2005; 5:4-15.
59. Ross PL, Huang YN, Marchese JN, et al. Multiplexed protein quantitation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using amine-reactive isobaric tagging reagents. Mol Cell Proteomics 2004;3:1154-69.
60. Linsen L. Locherbach J, Berth M, et al. Visual analysis of gel-free proteome data. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2006; 12 497-508.
61. Palagi PM, Walther D, Quadroni M, et al. MSight: An image analysis software for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Proteomics 2005;5:2381-4.
62. MSight. http://www.expasy.org/MSight/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
63. Levander F, Krogh M, Warell K, et al. Automated reporting from gel-based proteomics experiments using the open source Proteios database application. Proteomics 2007;7: 668-74.
64. Lisacek F, Cohen-Boulakia S, Appel RD. Proteome informatics II: bioinformatics for comparative proteomics. Proteomics 2006;6 5445-66.
65. Trans-Proteomic Pipeline. http://tools.proteomecenter.org/software.php/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
66. Keller A, Eng J, Zhang N, Li XJ. Aebersold R. A uniform proteomics MS/MS analysis platform utilizing open XML file formats. Mol Syst Biol 2005;1:2005.0017 [Epub 2005 Aug 2].
67. Proteome Standards Initiative. http://www.psidev.info/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
68. Human Proteome Organisation. http://www.hupo.org/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
69. Hermjakob U. The HUPO proteomics standards initiative - overcoming the fragmentation of proteomics data. Proteomics 2006;6:34-8.
70. Taylor CF, Paton NW, Lilley KS, et al. The minimum information about a proteomics: Experiment (MIAPE). Nat Biotechnol 2007;25 887-93.
71. Hermjakob H, Montecchi-Palazzi L, Bader G, et al. The HUPO PSI's molecular interaction format-a community standard for the representation of protein interaction data. Nat Biotechnol 2004;22:177-83.
72. Taylor CF, Paton NW, Garwood KL, et al. A systematic approach to modeling, capturing, and disseminating proteomics experimental data. Nat Biotechnol 2003;21: 247-54.
73. Pedrioli PG, Eng JK, Hubley R, et al. A common open representation of mass spectrometry data and its application to proteomics research. Nat Biotechnol 2004;22: 1459-66.
74. Garwood K, McLaughlin T, Garwood C, et al. PEDRo: A database for storing, searching and disseminating experimental proteomics data. BMC Genomics 2004;5: 68.
75. PRIDE. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
76. Open Proteomics Database. http://bioinformatics.icmb.utexas.edu/OPD/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
77. Gene Expression Omnibus. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
78. Proteome Harvest Spreadsheet. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride/ proteomeharvest/index.html (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
79. Omenn GS, States DJ, Adamski M, et al. Overview of the HUPO Plasma Proteome Project: Results from the pilot phase with 35 collaborating laboratories and multiple analytical groups, generating a core dataset of 3020 proteins and a publicly-available database. Proteomics 2005;5:3226-45.
80. Prakash A, Piening B, Whiteaker J, et al. Assessing bias in experiment design for large scale mass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics. Mol Cell Proteomics 2007;6:1741-8.
81. Nesvizhskii AI, Vitek O, Aebersold R. Analysis and validation of proteomic data generated by tandem mass spectrometry. Nat Methods 2007;4:787-97.
82. PEDRo Data Collator. http://pedrodownload.man.ac.uk/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
83. Preece A, Jin B, Missier P, et al. Towards the management of information quality in proteomics. Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS 2006), 2006, 936-40.
84. Qurator. http://www.qurator.org/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
85. Taverna. http://taverna.sourceforge.net/ (7 January 2008, date last accessed).
86. Missier P, Embury S, Greenwood M, et al. Quality views: Capturing and exploiting the user perspective on data quality. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 2006), Seoul, Korea, 2006, 977-88.