Standardizing Proteomics Workflow for Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry: Technical and Statistical Considerations.

Journal of proteomics & bioinformatics Pub Date : 2019-01-01 Epub Date: 2019-04-04 DOI:10.35248/0974-276x.19.12.496
Sudhir Srivastava, Michael Merchant, Anil Rai, Shesh N Rai
{"title":"Standardizing Proteomics Workflow for Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry: Technical and Statistical Considerations.","authors":"Sudhir Srivastava,&nbsp;Michael Merchant,&nbsp;Anil Rai,&nbsp;Shesh N Rai","doi":"10.35248/0974-276x.19.12.496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The quantitative measurements based on liquid chromatography (LC) coupled with mass spectrometry (MS) often suffer from the problem of missing values and data heterogeneity from technical variability. We considered a proteomics data set generated from human kidney biopsy material to investigate the technical effects of sample preparation and the quantitative MS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We studied the effect of tissue storage methods (TSMs) and tissue extraction methods (TEMs) on data analysis. There are two TSMs: frozen (FR) and FFPE (formalin-fixed paraffin embedded); and three TEMs: MAX, TX followed by MAX and SDS followed by MAX. We assessed the impact of different strategies to analyze the data while considering heterogeneity and MVs. We have used analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to study the effects due to various sources of variability.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusion: </strong>We found that the FFPE TSM is better than the FR TSM. We also found that the one-step TEM (MAX) is better than those of two-steps TEMs. Furthermore, we found the imputation method is a better approach than excluding the proteins with MVs or using unbalanced design.</p>","PeriodicalId":73911,"journal":{"name":"Journal of proteomics & bioinformatics","volume":"12 3","pages":"48-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7059694/pdf/","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of proteomics & bioinformatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/0974-276x.19.12.496","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/4/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Introduction: The quantitative measurements based on liquid chromatography (LC) coupled with mass spectrometry (MS) often suffer from the problem of missing values and data heterogeneity from technical variability. We considered a proteomics data set generated from human kidney biopsy material to investigate the technical effects of sample preparation and the quantitative MS.

Methods: We studied the effect of tissue storage methods (TSMs) and tissue extraction methods (TEMs) on data analysis. There are two TSMs: frozen (FR) and FFPE (formalin-fixed paraffin embedded); and three TEMs: MAX, TX followed by MAX and SDS followed by MAX. We assessed the impact of different strategies to analyze the data while considering heterogeneity and MVs. We have used analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to study the effects due to various sources of variability.

Results and conclusion: We found that the FFPE TSM is better than the FR TSM. We also found that the one-step TEM (MAX) is better than those of two-steps TEMs. Furthermore, we found the imputation method is a better approach than excluding the proteins with MVs or using unbalanced design.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

标准化蛋白质组学工作流程的液相色谱-质谱:技术和统计考虑。
简介:基于液相色谱(LC)和质谱(MS)的定量测量经常遭受由于技术可变性而导致的缺失值和数据异质性的问题。我们考虑了从人肾活检材料中产生的蛋白质组学数据集,以研究样品制备和定量ms的技术影响。方法:我们研究了组织储存方法(TSMs)和组织提取方法(tem)对数据分析的影响。有两种tsm:冷冻(FR)和FFPE(福尔马林固定石蜡包埋);三个tem: MAX、TX后MAX、SDS后MAX。在考虑异质性和mv的同时,我们评估了不同策略对数据分析的影响。我们使用方差分析(ANOVA)模型来研究由于各种变异性来源造成的影响。结果与结论:我们发现FFPE TSM优于FR TSM。我们还发现一步TEM (MAX)优于两步TEM (MAX)。此外,我们发现,与排除带有mv的蛋白质或使用不平衡设计相比,这种方法是一种更好的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信