Batch effects correction improves the sensitivity of significance tests in spectral counting-based comparative discovery proteomics

Journal of Proteomics

Volumn 75, Issue 13, 2012, Pages 3938-3951

  Gregori, Josep ^a,b   Villarreal, Laura ^a   Méndez, Olga ^a   Sánchez, Alex ^b,c   Baselga, José ^a   Villanueva, Josep ^a  

^a VALL D HEBRON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^c HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARI VALL D HEBRON   (Spain)

Author keywords

Biomarker discovery; Experimental design; Label free quantitation; Quantitative proteomics; Secretome; Spectral counts

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; FUNGAL PROTEIN; TRANSFORMING GROWTH FACTOR BETA;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; BATCH PROCESS; CANCER CELL CULTURE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; NONHUMAN; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCEDURES; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN DETERMINATION; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; PROTEOMICS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPECTRAL SENSITIVITY; YEAST;

CELL LINE, TUMOR; CHROMATOGRAPHY, LIQUID; HUMANS; MASS SPECTROMETRY; NEOPLASM PROTEINS; PROTEOMICS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84862686698     PISSN: 18743919     EISSN: 18767737     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2012.05.005     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Mallick P., Kuster B. Proteomics: a pragmatic perspective. Nat Biotechnol 2010, 28:695-709.
2. Ong S.-E., Mann M. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics turns quantitative. Nat Chem Biol 2005, 1:252-262.
3. Mann M. Functional and quantitative proteomics using SILAC. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2006, 7:952-958.
4. Ross P.L., Huang Y.N., Marchese J.N., Williamson B., Parker K., Hattan S., et al. Multiplexed protein quantitation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using amine-reactive isobaric tagging reagents. Mol Cell Proteomics 2004, 3:1154-1169.
5. Gilchrist A., Au C., Hiding J., Bell A., Fernandezrodriguez J., Lesimple S., et al. Quantitative proteomics analysis of the secretory pathway. Cell 2006, 127:1265-1281.
6. Neilson K.A., Ali N.A., Muralidharan S., Mirzaei M., Mariani M., Assadourian G., et al. Less label, more free: approaches in label-free quantitative mass spectrometry. Proteomics 2011, 11:535-553.
7. Karp N.A., Mccormick P.S., Russell M.R., Lilley K.S. Experimental and statistical considerations to avoid false conclusions in proteomics studies using differential in-gel electrophoresis. Mol Cell Proteomics 2007, 6:1354-1364.
8. Reproducibility of SELDI-TOF_Commbes_Bioinformatics 2004:12.
9. 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.
10. Pham T.V., Piersma S.R., Warmoes M., Jimenez C.R. On the beta-binomial model for analysis of spectral count data in label-free tandem mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Bioinformatics 2010, 26:363-369.
11. Li M., Gray W., Zhang H., Chung C.H., Billheimer D., Yarbrough W.G., et al. Comparative shotgun proteomics using spectral count data and quasi-likelihood modeling. J Proteome Res 2010, 9:4295-4305.
12. Pavelka N., Fournier M.L., Swanson S.K., Pelizzola M., Ricciardi-Castagnoli P., Florens L., et al. Statistical similarities between transcriptomics and quantitative shotgun proteomics data. Mol Cell Proteomics 2007, 7:631-644.
13. Paulovich A.G., Billheimer D., Ham A.-J.L., Vega-Montoto L., Rudnick P.A., Tabb D.L., et al. Interlaboratory study characterizing a yeast performance standard for benchmarking lc-ms platform performance. Mol Cell Proteomics 2010, 9:242-254.
14. Tabb D.L., Vega-Montoto L., Rudnick P.A., Variyath A.M., am A.-J.L., Bunk D.M., et al. Repeatability and reproducibility in proteomic identifications by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Proteome Res 2010, 9:761-776.
15. Oberg A.L., Vitek O. Statistical design of quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomic experiments. J Proteome Res 2009, 8:2144-2156.
16. Quinn G. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists - Gerald Peter Quinn, Michael J. Keough 2002, Cambridge University Press.
17. Husson F., Lê S., Pagès J. Exploratory Multivariate Analysis by Example Using R 2010, CRC Press.
18. Listgarten J., Kadie C., Schadt E.E., Heckerman D. Correction for hidden confounders in the genetic analysis of gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2010, 107:16465-16470.
19. Leek J.T., Storey J.D. Capturing heterogeneity in gene expression studies by surrogate variable analysis. PLoS Genet 2007, 3:1724-1735.
20. Walker W.L., Liao I.H., Gilbert D.L., Wong B., Pollard K.S., McCulloch C.E., et al. Empirical Bayes accommodation of batch-effects in microarray data using identical replicate reference samples: application to RNA expression profiling of blood from Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients. BMC Genomics 2008, 9:494.
21. Benito M., Parker J., Du Q., Wu J., Xiang D., Perou C.M., et al. Adjustment of systematic microarray data biases. Bioinformatics 2004, 20:105-114.
22. Luo J., Schumacher M., Scherer A., Sanoudou D., Megherbi D., Davison T., et al. A comparison of batch effect removal methods for enhancement of prediction performance using MAQC-II microarray gene expression data. Pharmacogenomics J 2010, 10:278-291.
23. Shi L., Jones W.D., Jensen R.V., Harris S.C., Perkins R.G., Goodsaid F.M., et al. The balance of reproducibility, sensitivity, and specificity of lists of differentially expressed genes in microarray studies. BMC Bioinformatics 2008, Suppl 9:S10.
24. Shi L., Campbell G., Jones W.D., Campagne F., Wen Z., Walker S.J., et al. MAQC Consortium. The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC)-II study of common practices for the development and validation of microarray-based predictive models. Nat Biotechnol 2010, 28:827-838.
25. Leek J.T., Scharpf R.B., Bravo H.C., Simcha D., Langmead B., Johnson W.E., et al. Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data. Nat Rev Genet 2010, 11:733-739.
26. Ransohoff D.F. Bias as a threat to the validity of cancer molecular-marker research. Nat Rev Cancer 2005, 5:142-149.
27. Ransohoff D.F. Lessons from controversy: ovarian cancer screening and serum proteomics. Cancer Spectr Knowl Environ 2005, 97:315-319.
28. Kultima K., Nilsson A., Scholz B., Rossbach U.L., Falth M., Andren P.E. Development and evaluation of normalization methods for label-free relative quantification of endogenous peptides. Mol Cell Proteomics 2009, 8:2285-2295.
29. Callister S.J., Barry R.C., Adkins J.N., Johnson E.T., Qian W.-J., Webb-Robertson B.-J.M., et al. Normalization approaches for removing systematic biases associated with mass spectrometry and label-free proteomics. J Proteome Res 2006, 5:277-286.
30. Lundgren D.H., Hwang S.-I., Wu L., Han D.K. Role of spectral counting in quantitative proteomics. Expert Rev Proteomics 2010, 7:39-53.
31. 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, 74:5383-5392.
32. Chambers J. Software for Data Analysis: Programming with R 2008, Springer Verlag.
33. Scherer A. Batch Effects and Noise in Microarray Experiments: Sources and Solutions - Andreas Scherer 2009, Google Books.
34. Agresti A. Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data 2010, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
35. Benjamini Y., Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate - a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 1995, 57:289-300.
36. Lawlor K., Nazarian A., Lacomis L., Tempst P., Villanueva J. Pathway-based biomarker search by high-throughput proteomics profiling of secretomes. J Proteome Res 2009, 8:1489-1503.
37. Scheel C., Eaton E.N., Li S.H.-J., Chaffer C.L., Reinhardt F., Kah K.-J., et al. Paracrine and autocrine signals induce and maintain mesenchymal and stem cell states in the breast. Cell 2011, 145:926-940.