MCP Tips for better browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


A more recent version of this article appeared on October 1, 2007.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
M600470-MCP200v1
M600470-MCP200v2
M600470-MCP200v3
6/10/1741    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Glossary
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Piening, B.
Right arrow Articles by Prakash, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Piening, B.
Right arrow Articles by Prakash, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Submitted on December 14, 2006
Revised on June 6, 2007
Accepted on July 4, 2007

Assessing bias in experiment design for large-scale mass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics

Brian Piening, Jeff Whiteaker, Heidi Zhang, Scott A. Schaffer, Daniel Martin, Laura Hohmann, Kelly Cooke, James Olson, Stacey Hansen, Mark R. Flory, Hookeun Lee, Julian Watts, David R. Goodlett, Ruedi Aebersold, Amanda Paulovich, Benno Schwikowski, and Amol Prakash

Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195

Corresponding Author: amol{at}cs.washington.edu

Mass spectrometry-based proteomics holds great promise as a discovery tool for biomarker candidates in the early detection of diseases. Recently, much emphasis has been placed upon producing highly reliable data for quantitative profiling, for which highly reproducible methodologies are indispensable. The main problems that affect experimental reproducibility stem from variations introduced by sample collection, preparation and storage protocols, and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) settings and conditions. On the basis of a formally precise and quantitative definition of similarity between LC-MS experiments, we have developed Chaorder, a fully automatic software tool that can assess experimental reproducibility of sets of large-scale LC-MS experiments. By visualizing the similarity relationships within a set of experiments, this tool can form the basis of quality control and thus help assess the comparability of mass spectrometry data over time, across different laboratories, and between instruments. Applying Chaorder to data from multiple laboratories and a range of instruments, experimental protocols, and sample complexities revealed biases introduced by the sample processing steps, experimental protocols and instrument choices. Moreover, we show that reducing bias by correcting for just a few steps, for example randomizing the run order, does not provide much gain in statistical power for biomarker discovery.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Brief BioinformHome page
D. A. Stead, N. W. Paton, P. Missier, S. M. Embury, C. Hedeler, B. Jin, A. J. P. Brown, and A. Preece
Information quality in proteomics
Brief Bioinform, March 1, 2008; 9(2): 174 - 188.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 All ASBMB Journals   Journal of Biological Chemistry 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.