Paper detail

Protein Inference and Protein Quantification: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Motivation: In mass spectrometry-based shotgun proteomics, protein quantification and protein identification are two major computational problems. To quantify the protein abundance, a list of proteins must be firstly inferred from the sample. Then the relative or absolute protein abundance is estimated with quantification methods, such as spectral counting. Until now, researchers have been dealing with these two processes separately. In fact, they are two sides of same coin in the sense that truly present proteins are those proteins with non-zero abundances. Then, one interesting question is if we regard the protein inference problem as a special protein quantification problem, is it possible to achieve better protein inference performance? Contribution: In this paper, we investigate the feasibility of using protein quantification methods to solve the protein inference problem. Protein inference is to determine whether each candidate protein is present in the sample or not. Protein quantification is to calculate the abundance of each protein. Naturally, the absent proteins should have zero abundances. Thus, we argue that the protein inference problem can be viewed as a special case of protein quantification problem: present proteins are those proteins with non-zero abundances. Based on this idea, our paper tries to use three very simple protein quantification methods to solve the protein inference problem effectively. Results: The experimental results on six datasets show that these three methods are competitive with previous protein inference algorithms. This demonstrates that it is plausible to take the protein inference problem as a special case of protein quantification, which opens the door of devising more effective protein inference algorithms from a quantification perspective.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.