Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41415463›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026

Comprehensive evaluation of statistical approaches for differential metaproteomics.

Tjorven Hinzke, Benoit J Kunath, J Alfredo Blakeley-Ruiz, Abigail Korenek, Simina Vintila, Paul Wilmes, Manuel Kleiner

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Tjorven HinzkeUniversity of Greifswald, partner of the Greifswald Mire Centre, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1117-0235
Benoit J KunathDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3356-8562
J Alfredo Blakeley-RuizDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7638-5849
Abigail KorenekDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-3044-5903
Simina VintilaDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0018-0016
Paul WilmesLuxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0002-6478-2924
Manuel KleinerDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6904-0287

Funding

PILOT AND FEASIBILITY STUDIESP30DK034987 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ROBERT S. SANDLER · 1985 to 2026
$30.5M
Metaproteomics to investigate intestinal microbiota-host and -diet interactionsR35GM138362 · NIGMS · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI KLEINER, MANUEL · 2020 to 2024
$1.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK034987NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM138362
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Metaproteomics characterizes and compares molecular phenotypes of organisms in communities by comprehensively analyzing their protein expression profiles using statistical methods. However, not all statistical methods are suitable for determining differentially abundant protein groups in metaproteomic analyses. Statistical challenges in metaproteomics include: data sparsity, non-normality, compositionality, and large between-sample variability. These challenges can potentially be addressed with several data processing steps, including imputation, normalization, transformation, and selection of the appropriate statistical tests. The potential combinations of different processing methods create a complex matrix of analysis options and it is currently unclear how these combinations impact the results of statistical tests on metaproteomic data. Results: To determine what data processing methods and statistical tests are best for identifying differentially abundant proteins in metaproteomics datasets, we generated a set of thirteen metaproteomic samples with known compositions, known differences, and differing levels of complexity. These defined metaproteomes address the general challenges outlined above, using various scenarios in metaproteomic data analyses. We compared over 110 different statistical analysis combination options, including regression-based tools, general statistics inference, and machine learning techniques. We found that several combinations within the frameworks of limma, edgeR, MaAslin2, custom linear and Bayesian linear models, and random forests all offer suitable evaluation options. Conclusions: We highlight key recommendations for differential expression analysis in metaproteomics. Our work enables improved assessment of statistical methods for metaproteomics by establishing a framework for testing statistical approaches, including comprehensive raw mass spectrometry data and reproducible benchmarking code.

Indexed as

Bayesian statisticsedgeRgeneralized linear mixed modelsholobiontlimmamicrobial communitymicrobiomeQuantitative proteomicsregression

Identifiers

PMID41415463
PMCPMC12709467

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.