Abstract
AbstractIdentification of differentially expressed proteins in a proteomics workflow typically encompasses five key steps: raw data quantification, expression matrix construction, matrix normalization, missing value imputation (MVI), and differential expression analysis. The plethora of options in each step makes it challenging to identify optimal workflows that maximize the identification of differentially expressed proteins. To identify optimal workflows and their common properties, we conduct an extensive study involving 34,576 combinatoric experiments on 24 gold standard spike-in datasets. Applying frequent pattern mining techniques to top-ranked workflows, we uncover high-performing rules that demonstrate optimality has conserved properties. Via machine learning, we confirm optimal workflows are indeed predictable, with average cross-validation F1 scores and Matthew’s correlation coefficients surpassing 0.84. We introduce an ensemble inference to integrate results from individual top-performing workflows for expanding differential proteome coverage and resolve inconsistencies. Ensemble inference provides gains in pAUC (up to 4.61%) and G-mean (up to 11.14%) and facilitates effective aggregation of information across varied quantification approaches such as topN, directLFQ, MaxLFQ intensities, and spectral counts. However, further development and evaluation are needed to establish acceptable frameworks for conducting ensemble inference on multiple proteomics workflows.
Funder
Ministry of Education - Singapore
National Research Foundation Singapore
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference90 articles.
1. Niu, L. et al. Noninvasive proteomic biomarkers for alcohol-related liver disease. Nat. Med. 28, 1277–1287 (2022).
2. Meissner, F., Geddes-McAlister, J., Mann, M. & Bantscheff, M. The emerging role of mass spectrometry-based proteomics in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 21, 637–654 (2022).
3. Langley, S. R. & Mayr, M. Comparative analysis of statistical methods used for detecting differential expression in label-free mass spectrometry proteomics. J. Proteom. 129, 83–92 (2015).
4. Ramus, C. et al. Benchmarking quantitative label-free LC–MS data processing workflows using a complex spiked proteomic standard dataset. J. Proteom. 132, 51–62 (2016).
5. Välikangas, T., Suomi, T. & Elo, L. L. A comprehensive evaluation of popular proteomics software workflows for label-free proteome quantification and imputation. Brief. Bioinform. 19, 1344–1355 (2018).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献