Cargando…

A systematic evaluation of normalization methods in quantitative label-free proteomics

To date, mass spectrometry (MS) data remain inherently biased as a result of reasons ranging from sample handling to differences caused by the instrumentation. Normalization is the process that aims to account for the bias and make samples more comparable. The selection of a proper normalization met...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Välikangas, Tommi, Suomi, Tomi, Elo, Laura L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5862339/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27694351
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbw095
_version_ 1783308209559175168
author Välikangas, Tommi
Suomi, Tomi
Elo, Laura L
author_facet Välikangas, Tommi
Suomi, Tomi
Elo, Laura L
author_sort Välikangas, Tommi
collection PubMed
description To date, mass spectrometry (MS) data remain inherently biased as a result of reasons ranging from sample handling to differences caused by the instrumentation. Normalization is the process that aims to account for the bias and make samples more comparable. The selection of a proper normalization method is a pivotal task for the reliability of the downstream analysis and results. Many normalization methods commonly used in proteomics have been adapted from the DNA microarray techniques. Previous studies comparing normalization methods in proteomics have focused mainly on intragroup variation. In this study, several popular and widely used normalization methods representing different strategies in normalization are evaluated using three spike-in and one experimental mouse label-free proteomic data sets. The normalization methods are evaluated in terms of their ability to reduce variation between technical replicates, their effect on differential expression analysis and their effect on the estimation of logarithmic fold changes. Additionally, we examined whether normalizing the whole data globally or in segments for the differential expression analysis has an effect on the performance of the normalization methods. We found that variance stabilization normalization (Vsn) reduced variation the most between technical replicates in all examined data sets. Vsn also performed consistently well in the differential expression analysis. Linear regression normalization and local regression normalization performed also systematically well. Finally, we discuss the choice of a normalization method and some qualities of a suitable normalization method in the light of the results of our evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5862339
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58623392018-07-10 A systematic evaluation of normalization methods in quantitative label-free proteomics Välikangas, Tommi Suomi, Tomi Elo, Laura L Brief Bioinform Papers To date, mass spectrometry (MS) data remain inherently biased as a result of reasons ranging from sample handling to differences caused by the instrumentation. Normalization is the process that aims to account for the bias and make samples more comparable. The selection of a proper normalization method is a pivotal task for the reliability of the downstream analysis and results. Many normalization methods commonly used in proteomics have been adapted from the DNA microarray techniques. Previous studies comparing normalization methods in proteomics have focused mainly on intragroup variation. In this study, several popular and widely used normalization methods representing different strategies in normalization are evaluated using three spike-in and one experimental mouse label-free proteomic data sets. The normalization methods are evaluated in terms of their ability to reduce variation between technical replicates, their effect on differential expression analysis and their effect on the estimation of logarithmic fold changes. Additionally, we examined whether normalizing the whole data globally or in segments for the differential expression analysis has an effect on the performance of the normalization methods. We found that variance stabilization normalization (Vsn) reduced variation the most between technical replicates in all examined data sets. Vsn also performed consistently well in the differential expression analysis. Linear regression normalization and local regression normalization performed also systematically well. Finally, we discuss the choice of a normalization method and some qualities of a suitable normalization method in the light of the results of our evaluation. Oxford University Press 2016-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5862339/ /pubmed/27694351 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbw095 Text en © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Papers
Välikangas, Tommi
Suomi, Tomi
Elo, Laura L
A systematic evaluation of normalization methods in quantitative label-free proteomics
title A systematic evaluation of normalization methods in quantitative label-free proteomics
title_full A systematic evaluation of normalization methods in quantitative label-free proteomics
title_fullStr A systematic evaluation of normalization methods in quantitative label-free proteomics
title_full_unstemmed A systematic evaluation of normalization methods in quantitative label-free proteomics
title_short A systematic evaluation of normalization methods in quantitative label-free proteomics
title_sort systematic evaluation of normalization methods in quantitative label-free proteomics
topic Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5862339/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27694351
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbw095
work_keys_str_mv AT valikangastommi asystematicevaluationofnormalizationmethodsinquantitativelabelfreeproteomics
AT suomitomi asystematicevaluationofnormalizationmethodsinquantitativelabelfreeproteomics
AT elolaural asystematicevaluationofnormalizationmethodsinquantitativelabelfreeproteomics
AT valikangastommi systematicevaluationofnormalizationmethodsinquantitativelabelfreeproteomics
AT suomitomi systematicevaluationofnormalizationmethodsinquantitativelabelfreeproteomics
AT elolaural systematicevaluationofnormalizationmethodsinquantitativelabelfreeproteomics