ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Comprehensive evaluation of statistical approaches for differential metaproteomics.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.