An automated proteomic data analysis workflow for mass spectrometry

• Published in: BMC bioinformatics Vol. 10; no. Suppl 11; p. S17
• Main Authors: Pendarvis, Ken, Kumar, Ranjit, Burgess, Shane C, Nanduri, Bindu
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central 08.10.2009; BMC
• Subjects: Algorithms; Bioinformatics; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Computational Biology/Bioinformatics; Computer Appl. in Life Sciences; Databases, Protein; Life Sciences; Mass Spectrometry - methods; Microarrays; Proceedings; Proteins - chemistry; Proteomics - methods; Software; Statistics as Topic; Workflow; Differential Protein Expression; Differential Expression Analysis; Protein Identification; Differentially Express; Custom Perl Script
• ISSN: 1471-2105; 1471-2105
• DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-S11-S17

Background Mass spectrometry-based protein identification methods are fundamental to proteomics. Biological experiments are usually performed in replicates and proteomic analyses generate huge datasets which need to be integrated and quantitatively analyzed. The Sequest™ search algorithm is a commonly used algorithm for identifying peptides and proteins from two dimensional liquid chromatography electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (2-D LC ESI MS 2 ) data. A number of proteomic pipelines that facilitate high throughput 'post data acquisition analysis' are described in the literature. However, these pipelines need to be updated to accommodate the rapidly evolving data analysis methods. Here, we describe a proteomic data analysis pipeline that specifically addresses two main issues pertinent to protein identification and differential expression analysis: 1) estimation of the probability of peptide and protein identifications and 2) non-parametric statistics for protein differential expression analysis. Our proteomic analysis workflow analyzes replicate datasets from a single experimental paradigm to generate a list of identified proteins with their probabilities and significant changes in protein expression using parametric and non-parametric statistics. Results The input for our workflow is Bioworks™ 3.2 Sequest (or a later version, including cluster) output in XML format. We use a decoy database approach to assign probability to peptide identifications. The user has the option to select "quality thresholds" on peptide identifications based on the P value. We also estimate probability for protein identification. Proteins identified with peptides at a user-specified threshold value from biological experiments are grouped as either control or treatment for further analysis in ProtQuant. ProtQuant utilizes a parametric (ANOVA) method, for calculating differences in protein expression based on the quantitative measure ΣXcorr. Alternatively ProtQuant output can be further processed using non-parametric Monte-Carlo resampling statistics to calculate P values for differential expression. Correction for multiple testing of ANOVA and resampling P values is done using Benjamini and Hochberg's method. The results of these statistical analyses are then combined into a single output file containing a comprehensive protein list with probabilities and differential expression analysis, associated P values, and resampling statistics. Conclusion For biologists carrying out proteomics by mass spectrometry, our workflow facilitates automated, easy to use analyses of Bioworks (3.2 or later versions) data. All the methods used in the workflow are peer-reviewed and as such the results of our workflow are compliant with proteomic data submission guidelines to public proteomic data repositories including PRIDE. Our workflow is a necessary intermediate step that is required to link proteomics data to biological knowledge for generating testable hypotheses.