4.5 Review

A comparative analysis of computational approaches to relative protein quantification using peptide peak intensities in label-free LC-MS proteomics experiments

期刊

PROTEOMICS
卷 13, 期 3-4, 页码 493-503

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201200269

关键词

Label-free; Peak intensity; Protein quantification; Relative

资金

  1. Laboratory Directed Research and Development at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) under the Signature Discovery Initiative
  2. National Institutes of Health [DK071283, U54-016015]
  3. National Center for Research Resources [5P41RR018522-10]
  4. National Institute of General Medical Sciences from the National Institutes of Health [8 P41 GM103493-10]
  5. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Biological and Environmental Research
  6. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC06-76RL01830]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC-MS) is widely used to identify and quantify peptides in complex biological samples. In particular, label-free shotgun proteomics is highly effective for the identification of peptides and subsequently obtaining a global protein profile of a sample. As a result, this approach is widely used for discovery studies. Typically, the objective of these discovery studies is to identify proteins that are affected by some condition of interest (e.g. disease, exposure). However, for complex biological samples, label-free LC-MS proteomics experiments measure peptides and do not directly yield protein quantities. Thus, protein quantification must be inferred from one or more measured peptides. In recent years, many computational approaches to relative protein quantification of label-free LC-MS data have been published. In this review, we examine the most commonly employed quantification approaches to relative protein abundance from peak intensity values, evaluate their individual merits, and discuss challenges in the use of the various computational approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据