4.7 Article

Statistical Inference from Multiple iTRAQ Experiments without Using Common Reference Standards

Journal

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 594-604

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr300624g

Keywords

Mass spectrometry; iTRAQ; statistical analysis; experimental design

Funding

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [GH 5241, GH614]
  2. US Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. [HRN-A-00-97-00015-00, GHS-A-00-03-00019-00]
  3. Johns Hopkins University
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA [GH 614]
  5. CTSA grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) is a prominent mass spectrometry technology for protein identification and quantification that is capable of analyzing multiple samples in a single experiment. Frequently, iTRAQ experiments are carried out using an aliquot from a pool of all samples, or masterpool, in one of the channels as a reference sample standard to estimate protein relative abundances in the biological samples and to combine abundance estimates from multiple experiments. In this manuscript, we show that using a masterpool is counterproductive. We obtain more precise estimates of protein relative abundance by using the available biological data instead of the masterpool and do not need to occupy a channel that could otherwise be used for another biological sample. In addition, we introduce a simple statistical method to associate proteomic data from multiple iTRAQ experiments with a numeric response and show that this approach is more powerful than the conventionally employed masterpool-based approach. We illustrate our methods using data from four replicate iTRAQ experiments on aliquots of the same pool of plasma samples and from a 406-sample project designed to identify plasma proteins that covary with nutrient concentrations in chronically undernourished children from South Asia.

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