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 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.
Tommi
T
Välikangas
Tomi
T
Suomi
Laura L
LL
Elo
D000818:Animals; D030562:Databases, Protein; D006801:Humans; D051379:Mice; D015233:Models, Statistical; D010449:Peptide Mapping / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D020543:Proteome / Q000032:analysis; D040901:Proteomics / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results
D020543:Proteome
bias; differential expression; intragroup variation; label free; logarithmic fold change; mass spectrometry; normalization; proteomics; quantitation; reproducibility
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 30;9(12):e116221
25549083
Mol Cell Proteomics. 2009 Oct;8(10):2285-95
19596695
Genome Biol. 2005;6(2):R16
15693945
Mol Cell Proteomics. 2014 Sep;13(9):2513-26
24942700
Mol Cell Proteomics. 2016 Apr;15(4):1467-78
26729709
IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2008 Jul-Sep;5(3):423-31
18670045
Bioinformatics. 2003 Jan 22;19(2):185-93
12538238
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013 Aug;1834(8):1581-90
23567906
J Proteome Res. 2014 Jun 6;13(6):3114-20
24766612
Bioinformatics. 2009 Oct 1;25(19):2573-80
19602524
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Apr 20;43(7):e47
25605792
Nat Genet. 2002 Dec;32 Suppl:496-501
12454644
Nat Immunol. 2014 Feb;15(2):112-7
24448568
J Proteome Res. 2010 Feb 5;9(2):761-76
19921851
Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015 May;14(5):1400-10
25724911
J Proteomics. 2016 Feb 5;133:66-75
26691839
J Proteome Res. 2015 Oct 2;14(10):4118-26
26321463
BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13 Suppl 16:S5
23176322
Nat Genet. 1996 Dec;14(4):457-60
8944026
Proteomics. 2011 Dec;11(24):4736-41
22038874
Bioinformatics. 2002;18 Suppl 1:S96-104
12169536
J Cell Biochem Suppl. 2001;Suppl 37:120-5
11842437
J Proteome Res. 2006 Feb;5(2):277-86
16457593
Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2006 Nov;86(6):445-60
16376151
J Proteome Res. 2015 Feb 6;14(2):676-87
25407311