Table I For each metal condition, protein quantification was database independent. Only proteins identified in all three databases were compared under each condition
Micronutrient statusNumber of significant changesaTotal number of proteins comparedbPercentage of significant changesAverage % changec
Metalμm in mediumAu10.2 vs. FM3.1
Cu0248392.916
2207822.617
Zn0316924.516
2.5156252.415
Fe0.25144343.214
1175343.214
20215533.814
Mn024180.514
0.0584042.014
264081.516
Au10.2 vs. FM4
Cu0128331.412
2147911.813
Zn0216923.015
2.576251.114
Fe0.2584341.814
1115342.113
20315535.618
Mn044180.9616
0.05114042.7215
244080.9815
FM3.1 vs. FM4
Cu0148391.715
2147961.816
Zn0246923.517
2.5156252.416
Fe0.25104342.316
1225344.116
20295535.219
Mn054181.218
0.05104042.517
274081.719
  • a Significance determined by Student's t-test with a 95% confidence interval.

  • b Proteins were selected for comparison only if identified using all three databases.

  • c Calculated as (Average abundanceDatabase1 − Average abundanceDatabase2)/(Average abundanceall values).