2018
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201800222
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Art of Validating Quantitative Proteomics Data

Abstract: Western blotting as an orthogonal validation tool for quantitative proteomics data has rapidly become a de facto requirement for publication. In this viewpoint article, the pros and cons of western blotting as a validation approach are discussed, using examples from our own published work, and how to best apply it to improve the quality of data published is outlined. Further, suggestions and guidelines for some other experimental approaches are provided, which can be used for validation of quantitative proteom… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(31 reference statements)
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To validate the MS/MS proteomic results, the expression levels of CYR61, laminin subunit β-2 and superoxide dismutase were assessed by immunofluorescence and immunoblotting in both culture groups. The rationale behind selecting targets to validate by Western blot was to verify relevant biological aspects of the proteomic dataset, as recommended elsewhere [ 22 ], instead of just validating the most abundant proteins. Because the proteomic dataset indicated that proteins related to inflammation, differentiation, cell adhesion and superoxide dismutase were upregulated in the sericin-treated group, targets to be validated by immunoblotting were chosen to represent some of these biological functions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To validate the MS/MS proteomic results, the expression levels of CYR61, laminin subunit β-2 and superoxide dismutase were assessed by immunofluorescence and immunoblotting in both culture groups. The rationale behind selecting targets to validate by Western blot was to verify relevant biological aspects of the proteomic dataset, as recommended elsewhere [ 22 ], instead of just validating the most abundant proteins. Because the proteomic dataset indicated that proteins related to inflammation, differentiation, cell adhesion and superoxide dismutase were upregulated in the sericin-treated group, targets to be validated by immunoblotting were chosen to represent some of these biological functions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If proteomics is considered with equal latitude, this will only result in the identification of new unique variants. If some of these variants prove to be biologically relevant and/or differentially expressed, then manual or secondary verification would be performed as a matter of course [36].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, the validation of proteomic results by WB is a popular matter of debate. Although it is robust to affirm that alterations detected by this technique clearly reflect changes in the proteomic profile, it has some major limitations including: (1) the user has to select the proteins with high abundance in the proteomic analysis to increase the probability of validation by WB, which has a lower sensitivity; and (2) the use of housekeeping proteins as internal standard for WB analysis, because their expression may be different in health or disease conditions [ 42 ]. We tried to overcome the above limitations by applying the following criteria: (1) selection of proteins with very low, low, medium, and high abundance; and (2) use of total protein staining as internal standard for WB analysis rather than the expression of a housekeeping protein.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%