4.7 Article

Tools for computational processing of LC-MS datasets:: A user's perspective

Journal

COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE
Volume 86, Issue 3, Pages 281-290

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2007.03.001

Keywords

label-free proteomics; liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) profiling; software tools usability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) profiling of clinical samples for quantifying absolute ion abundances of peptides and proteins has emerged as a promising approach. Quantitation of changes in protein abundance of large number of samples is challenging and requires automatic processing means. The development of data analysis software is laborious and time-consuming. Fortunately, freely available tools have been recently introduced, which incorporate algorithms for visualization and data processing and allow the user to embed external routines for data analysis. A relevant issue related to the design and evaluation of such tools concerns. usability Properties such as easy access, large datasets management, modularity, integration with other tools, etc, are important for performing large-scale integrative data analysis with methods and visual techniques from different (possibly integrated) tools. In this paper, we consider four freely available tools recently introduced in top international journals in order to identify a list of such usability descriptors. We propose 10 descriptors that can be used both as guidelines when developing new tools and as parameters for assessing usability of existing tools. The considered tools show satisfactory usability properties, and the most recent tools exhibit improved flexibility, indicating a trend towards the design of tools that give the user a more central role in the selection, use and integration of methods and tools. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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