Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31151397›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2019

Clinical biomarker discovery by SWATH-MS based label-free quantitative proteomics: impact of criteria for identification of differentiators and data normalization method.

Mythreyi Narasimhan, Sadhana Kannan, Aakash Chawade, Atanu Bhattacharjee, Rukmini Govekar

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Quantification of Changes in Protein Expression Using SWATH Proteomics.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    Article
  15. A Proteomics-Based Analysis of Blood Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of COPD Acute Exacerbation.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mythreyi NarasimhanAdvanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, 410210, India.
Sadhana KannanAdvanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, 410210, India.
Aakash ChawadeDepartment of Plant Breeding, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden.
Atanu BhattacharjeeSection of Biostatistics, Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, 410210, India.
Rukmini GovekarAdvanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, 410210, India. rgovekar@actrec.gov.in.ORCID 0000-0003-0515-2276

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSWATH-MS has emerged as the strategy of choice for biomarker discovery due to the proteome coverage achieved in acquisition and provision to re-interrogate the data. However, in quantitative analysis using SWATH, each sample from the comparison group is run individually in mass spectrometer and the resulting inter-run variation may influence relative quantification and identification of biomarkers. Normalization of data to diminish this variation thereby becomes an essential step in SWATH data processing. In most reported studies, data normalization methods used are those provided in instrument-based data analysis software or those used for microarray data. This study, for the first time provides an experimental evidence for selection of normalization method optimal for biomarker identification.

methodsThe efficiency of 12 normalization methods to normalize SWATH-MS data was evaluated based on statistical criteria in 'Normalyzer'-a tool which provides comparative evaluation of normalization by different methods. Further, the suitability of normalized data for biomarker discovery was assessed by evaluating the clustering efficiency of differentiators, identified from the normalized data based on p-value, fold change and both, by hierarchical clustering in Genesis software v.1.8.1.

resultsConventional statistical criteria identified VSN-G as the optimal method for normalization of SWATH data. However, differentiators identified from VSN-G normalized data failed to segregate test and control groups. We thus assessed data normalized by eleven other methods for their ability to yield differentiators which segregate the study groups. Datasets in our study demonstrated that differentiators identified based on p-value from data normalized with Loess-R stratified the study groups optimally.

conclusionThis is the first report of experimentally tested strategy for SWATH-MS data processing with an emphasis on identification of clinically relevant biomarkers. Normalization of SWATH-MS data by Loess-R method and identification of differentiators based on p-value were found to be optimal for biomarker discovery in this study. The study also demonstrates the need to base the choice of normalization method on the application of the data.

Indexed as

Mass SpectrometryProteomicsBiomarkersCase-Control StudiesDatasets as TopicDiagnosis, DifferentialEscherichia coliEvaluation Studies as TopicHeLa CellsHumansK562 CellsPeptide FragmentsProteomeReference StandardsReference ValuesSoftwareBiomarkersPeptide FragmentsProteomeFold changeLC–MSNormalizationProteomicp-valueSWATH

Identifiers

PMID31151397
PMCPMC6545036

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.