Comparative evaluation of label-free SINQ normalized spectral index quantitation in the central proteomics facilities pipeline

Proteomics

Volumn 11, Issue 14, 2011, Pages 2790-2797

  Trudgian, David C ^a,b   Ridlova, Gabriela ^a   Fischer, Roman ^b   Mackeen, Mukram M ^b   Ternette, Nicola ^b   Acuto, Oreste ^a   Kessler, Benedikt M ^b   Thomas, Benjamin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics; Label free; Quantitative analysis; Web tool

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ARTICLE; CENTRAL PROTEOMICS FACILITIES PIPELINE; LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; MASS SPECTROMETER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; PROTEOMICS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS;

CHROMATOGRAPHY, LIQUID; HUMANS; PROTEINS; PROTEOME; PROTEOMICS; TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY;

EID: 79959734666     PISSN: 16159853     EISSN: 16159861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201000800     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Zhu, W., Smith, J. W., Huang, C.-M., Mass spectrometry-based label-free quantitative proteomics. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2010, Article ID 840518. DOI: 10.1155/2010/840518.
2. Wang, M., You, J., Bemis, K. G., Tegeler, T. J., Brown, P. G., Label-free mass spectrometry-based protein quantification technologies in proteomic analysis. Brief. Funct. Genomic. Proteomic. 2008, 7, 329-339.
3. Paoletti, A. C., Parmely, T. J., Tomomori-Sato, C., Sato, S. et al., Quantitative proteomic analysis of distinct mammalian mediator complexes using normalized spectral abundance factors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 18928-18933.
4. Ishihama, Y., Oda, Y., Tabata, T., Sato, T. et al., Exponentially modified protein abundance index (emPAI) for estimation of absolute protein amount in proteomics by the number of sequenced peptides per protein. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2005, 4, 1265-1272.
5. Lu, P., Vogel, C., Wang, R., Yao, X., Marcotte, E. M., Absolute protein expression profiling estimates the relative contributions of transcriptional and translational regulation. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 117-124.
6. Zhang, B., VerBerkmoes, N. C., Langston, M. A., Uberbacher, E. et al., Detecting differential and correlated protein expression in label-free shotgun proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 2006, 5, 2909-2918.
7. Choi, H., Fermin, D., Nesvizhskii, A. I., Significance analysis of spectral count data in label-free shotgun proteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2008, 7, 2373-2385.
8. E. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2006, 5, 144-156.
9. Chen, J., Ryu, S., Gharib, S. A., Goodlett, D. R., Schnapp, L. M., Exploration of the normal human bronchoalveolar lavage fluid proteome. Proteomics Clin. Appl. 2008, 2, 585-595.
10. Ryu, S., Gallis, B., Goo, Y. A., Shaffer, S. A. et al., Comparison of a label-free quantitative proteomic method based on peptide current area to the isotope coded affinity tag method. Cancer Inform. 2008, 6, 243-255.
11. Griffin, N. M., Yu, J., Long, F., Oh, P. et al., Label-free, normalized quantification of complex mass spectrometry data for proteomic analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 83-89.
12. Trudgian, D. C., Thomas, B., McGowan, S. J., Kessler, B. M. et al., CPFP: a central proteomics facilities pipeline. Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 1131-1132.
13. Deutsch, E. W., Shteynberg, D., Lam, H., Sun, Z. et al., Trans-Proteomic pipeline supports and improves analysis of electron transfer dissociation data sets. Proteomics 2010, 10, 1190-1195.
14. Tabb, D. L., Vega-Montoto, L., Rudnick, P. A., Variyath, A. M. et al., Repeatability and reproducibility in proteomic identifications by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Proteome Res. 2010, 9, 761-776.
15. Geer, L. Y., Markey, S. P., Kowalak, J. A., Wagner, L. et al., Open mass spectrometry search algorithm. J. Proteome Res. 2004, 3, 958-964.
16. Craig, R., Cortens, J. P., Beavis, R. C., Open source system for analyzing, validating, and storing protein identification data. J. Proteome Res. 2004, 3, 1234-1242.
17. Maclean, B., Eng, J. K., Beavis, R. C., McIntosh, M., General framework for developing and evaluating database scoring algorithms using the TANDEM search engine. Bioinformatics 2006, 22, 2830-2832.
18. Klimek, J., Eddes, J. S., Hohmann, L., Jackson, J. et al., The standard protein mix database: a diverse data set to assist in the production of improved peptide and protein identification software tools. J. Proteome Res. 2008, 7, 96-103.
19. Elias, J. E., Gygi, S. P., Target-decoy search strategy for increased confidence in large-scale protein identifications by mass spectrometry. Nat. Methods 2007, 4, 207-214.
20. Keller, A., Nesvizhskii, A. I., Kolker, E., Aebersold, R., Empirical statistical model to estimate the accuracy of peptide identifications made by MS/MS and database search. Anal. Chem. 2002, 74, 5358-5392.
21. Nezvizhskii, A. I., Keller, A., Kolker, E., Aebersold, R., A statistical model for identifying proteins by tandem mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 2003, 75, 2279-2287.
22. Käll, L., Storey, J. D., MacCoss, M. J., Noble, W. S., Assigning significance to peptide identified by tandem mass spectrometry using decoy databases. J. Proteome Res. 2008, 7, 29-34.
23. Tabb, D. L., McDonald, W. H., Yates, J. R., 3rd, DTASelect and contrast: tools for assembling and comparing protein identifications from shotgun proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 2002, 1, 21-26.
24. Zybailov, B., Mosley, A. L., Sardiu, M. E., Coleman, M. K. et al., Statistical analysis of membrane proteome expression changes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Proteome Res. 2006, 5, 2339-2347.
25. Cox, J., Mann, M., MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide quantification. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 1367-1372.
26. Geiger, T., Cox, J., Mann, M., Proteomics on an Orbitrap benchtop mass spectrometer using all-ion fragmentation. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2010, 9, 2252-2261.
27. Pavelka, N., Pelizzola, M., Vizzardelli, C., Capozzoli, M. et al., A power law global error model for the identification of differentially expressed genes in microarray data. BMC Bioinformatics 2004, 5, 203.