4.7 Article

Integral Quantification Accuracy Estimation for Reporter Ion-based Quantitative Proteomics (iQuARI)

Journal

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages 5072-5080

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr300247u

Keywords

false discovery rate; quantification; iTRAQ; TMT

Funding

  1. Ministerium fur Innovation, Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen
  2. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (SARA, DYNAMO)
  3. Ghent University
  4. European Union [262067]
  5. PRIME-XS project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the increasing popularity of comparative studies of complex proteomes, reporter ion-based quantification methods such as iTRAQ and TMT have become common-place in biological studies. Their appeal derives from simple multiplexing and quantification of several samples at reasonable cost. This advantage yet comes with a known shortcoming: precursors of different species can interfere, thus reducing the quantification accuracy. Recently, two methods were brought to the community alleviating the amount of interference via novel experimental design. Before considering setting up a new workflow, tuning the system, optimizing identification and quantification rates, etc. one legitimately asks: is it really worth the effort, time and money? The question is actually not easy to answer since the interference is heavily sample and system dependent. Moreover, there was to date no method allowing the inline estimation of error rates for reporter quantification. We therefore introduce a method called iQuARI to compute false discovery rates for reporter ion based quantification experiments as easily as Target/Decoy FDR for identification. With it, the scientist can accurately estimate the amount of interference in his sample on his system and eventually consider removing shadows subsequently, a task for which reporter ion quantification might not be the solution of choice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available