NDLI: Evaluating Experimental Bias and Completeness in Comparative Phosphoproteomics Analysis

Content Provider	PubMed Central
Author	Boekhorst, Jos Boersema, Paul J. Tops, Bastiaan B. J. Van Breukelen, Bas Heck, Albert J. R. Snel, Berend
Editor	Pant, Harish
Copyright Year	2011
Abstract	Unraveling the functional dynamics of phosphorylation networks is a crucial step in understanding the way in which biological networks form a living cell. Recently there has been an enormous increase in the number of measured phosphorylation events. Nevertheless, comparative and integrative analysis of phosphoproteomes is confounded by incomplete coverage and biases introduced by different experimental workflows. As a result, we cannot differentiate whether phosphosites indentified in only one or two samples are the result of condition or species specific phosphorylation, or reflect missing data. Here, we evaluate the impact of incomplete phosphoproteomics datasets on comparative analysis, and we present bioinformatics strategies to quantify the impact of different experimental workflows on measured phosphoproteomes. We show that plotting the saturation in observed phosphosites in replicates provides a reproducible picture of the extent of a particular phosphoproteome. Still, we are still far away from a complete picture of the total human phosphoproteome. The impact of different experimental techniques on the similarity between phosphoproteomes can be estimated by comparing datasets from different experimental pipelines to a common reference. Our results show that comparative analysis is most powerful when datasets have been generated using the same experimental workflow. We show this experimentally by measuring the tyrosine phosphoproteome from Caenorhabditis elegans and comparing it to the tyrosine phosphoproteome of HeLa cells, resulting in an overlap of about 4%. This overlap between very different organisms represents a three-fold increase when compared to dataset of older studies, wherein different workflows were used. The strategies we suggest enable an estimation of the impact of differences in experimental workflows on the overlap between datasets. This will allow us to perform comparative analyses not only on datasets specifically generated for this purpose, but also to extract insights through comparative analysis of the ever-increasing wealth of publically available phosphorylation data.
Related Links	http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023276
Starting Page	23276
File Format	PDF
ISSN	19326203
e-ISSN	19326203
Journal	PLoS ONE
Issue Number	8
Volume Number	6
Language	English
Publisher	Public Library of Science
Publisher Date	2011-08-01
Access Restriction	Open
Rights Holder	Public Library of Science
Subject Keyword	Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all) Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all) Medicine(all) Research in Higher Education
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Multidisciplinary

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Quantitative Phosphoproteomics Analysis of ERBB3/ERBB4 Signaling

Comparative Analysis of Codon Usage Bias Patterns in Microsporidian Genomes

Quantitative Phosphoproteomics Analysis of Nitric Oxide–Responsive Phosphoproteins in Cotton Leaf

Attentional Bias in Snus Users: An Experimental Study

Quantitative Phosphoproteomics of CXCL12 (SDF-1) Signaling

Quantitative Phosphoproteomics of Proteasome Inhibition in Multiple Myeloma Cells

Comparative Analysis of Codon Usage Bias and Codon Context Patterns between Dipteran and Hymenopteran Sequenced Genomes

Completeness and Changes in Registered Data and Reporting Bias of Randomized Controlled Trials in ICMJE Journals after Trial Registration Policy

Phosphoproteomics-Based Modeling Defines the Regulatory Mechanism Underlying Aberrant EGFR Signaling

Evaluating Experimental Bias and Completeness in Comparative Phosphoproteomics Analysis

Similar Documents

Quantitative Phosphoproteomics Analysis of ERBB3/ERBB4 Signaling

Comparative Analysis of Codon Usage Bias Patterns in Microsporidian Genomes

Quantitative Phosphoproteomics Analysis of Nitric Oxide–Responsive Phosphoproteins in Cotton Leaf

Attentional Bias in Snus Users: An Experimental Study

Quantitative Phosphoproteomics of CXCL12 (SDF-1) Signaling

Quantitative Phosphoproteomics of Proteasome Inhibition in Multiple Myeloma Cells

Comparative Analysis of Codon Usage Bias and Codon Context Patterns between Dipteran and Hymenopteran Sequenced Genomes

Completeness and Changes in Registered Data and Reporting Bias of Randomized Controlled Trials in ICMJE Journals after Trial Registration Policy

Phosphoproteomics-Based Modeling Defines the Regulatory Mechanism Underlying Aberrant EGFR Signaling

Evaluating Experimental Bias and Completeness in Comparative Phosphoproteomics Analysis