Advertisement

Assessing Signal-to-Noise in Quantitative Proteomics: Multivariate Statistical Analysis in DIGE Experiments

  • David B. FriedmanEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 854)

Abstract

All quantitative proteomics experiments measure variation between samples. When performing large-scale experiments that involve multiple conditions or treatments, the experimental design should include the appropriate number of individual biological replicates from each condition to enable the distinction between a relevant biological signal from technical noise. Multivariate statistical analyses, such as principal component analysis (PCA), provide a global perspective on experimental variation, thereby enabling the assessment of whether the variation describes the expected biological signal or the unanticipated technical/biological noise inherent in the system. Examples will be shown from high-resolution multivariable DIGE experiments where PCA was instrumental in demonstrating biologically significant variation as well as sample outliers, fouled samples, and overriding technical variation that would not be readily observed using standard univariate tests.

Key words

DIGE Principal component analysis Multivariate statistics Variation Technical replicates Biological replicates 

References

  1. 1.
    Karp, N. A., and Lilley, K. S. (2005) Maximising sensitivity for detecting changes in protein expression: experimental design using minimal CyDyes, Proteomics. 5, 3105–3115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alban, A., David, S. O., Bjorkesten, L., Andersson, C., Sloge, E., Lewis, S., and Currie, I. (2003) A novel experimental design for comparative two-dimensional gel analysis: Two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis incorporating a pooled internal standard, Proteomics 3, 36–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friedman, D. B., Stauff, D. L., Pishchany, G., Whitwell, C. W., Torres, V. J., and Skaar, E. P. (2006) Staphylococcus aureus Redirects Central Metabolism to Increase Iron Availability, PLoS Pathogens 2, e87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedman, D. B., Wang, S. E., Whitwell, C. W., Caprioli, R. M., and Arteaga, C. L. (2007) Multi-variable Difference Gel Electrophoresis and Mass Spectrometry: A Case Study on TGF-beta and ErbB2 signaling, Mol Cell Proteomics 6, 150–169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lilley, K. S., and Friedman, D. B. (2004) All about DIGE: quantification technology for differential-display 2D-gel proteomics, Expert Rev Proteomics. 1, 401–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franco, A. T., Friedman, D. B., Nagy, T. A., Romero-Gallo, J., Krishna, U., Kendall, A., Israel, D. A., Tegtmeyer, N., Washington, M. K., and Peek, R. M., Jr. (2009) Delineation of a carcinogenic Helicobacter pylori proteome, Mol Cell Proteomics 25, 25.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loh, J. T., Gupta, S. S., Friedman, D. B., Krezel, A. M., and Cover, T. L. (2010) Analysis of protein expression regulated by the Helicobacter pylori ArsRS two-component signal transduction system, J Bacteriol 192, 2034–2043.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karp, N. A., and Lilley, K. S. (2009) Investigating sample pooling strategies for DIGE experiments to address biological variability, Proteomics. 9, 388–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Proteomics Laboratory, Mass Spectrometry Research CenterVanderbilt University School of MedicineNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations