Standardizing Proteomics Workflow for Liquid ChromatographyMass Spectrometry: Technical and Statistical Considerations
Received Date: Mar 01, 2019 / Accepted Date: Mar 27, 2019 / Published Date: Apr 04, 2019
Abstract
Introduction: The quantitative measurements based on liquid chromatography (LC) coupled with mass spectrometry (MS) often suffer from the problem of missing values and data heterogeneity from technical variability. We considered a proteomics data set generated from human kidney biopsy material to investigate the technical effects of sample preparation and the quantitative MS.
Methods: We studied the effect of tissue storage methods (TSMs) and tissue extraction methods (TEMs) on data analysis. There are two TSMs: frozen (FR) and FFPE (formalinfixed paraffin embedded); and three TEMs: MAX, TX followed by MAX and SDS followed by MAX. We assessed the impact of different strategies to analyze the data while considering heterogeneity and MVs. We have used analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to study the effects due to various sources of variability.
Results and Conclusion: We found that the FFPE TSM is better than the FR TSM. We also found that the onestep TEM (MAX) is better than those of twosteps TEMs. Furthermore, we found the imputation method is a better approach than excluding the proteins with MVs or using unbalanced design.
Keywords: ANOVA; Imputation; Proteins; Tissue storage; Tissue extraction; Technical variability
List of Abbreviations
LC: Liquid Chromatography; MS: Mass Spectrometry; ANOVA: Analysis of Variance; MCAR: Missing Completely at Random; MAR: Missing at Random; MNAR: Missing not at Random; MVs: Missing Values; TSM: Tissue Storage Method; FFPE: FormalinFixed Paraffin Embedded; FR: Frozen; TEM: Tissue Extraction Method; MAX: Protease MAX; TX: Triton X100; SDS: Sodium Dodecylsulfate; LCMD: Laser Capture Microdissection; ETD: ElectronTransfer Dissociation; CID: CollisionInduced Dissociation; cRAP: Common Repository of Adventitious Proteins; FDR: False Discovery Rate; SS: Sum of Squares; CV: Coefficient of Variation
Introduction
Proteins are important biological macromolecules performing a wide variety of functions. The proteome can be defined as the entire set of proteins translated and/or modified within a living organism [1,2]. Proteomics more generally refers to largescale LCMS based discovery studies designed to address both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the proteome in question. Now proteomics has emerged as a powerful tool across various fields such as biomedicine mainly applied to diseases, agriculture and animal sciences [310]. The practical application of proteomics includes expression proteomics, structural proteomics, biomarker discovery, interaction proteomics, protein networks, etc. [11,12]. Here, we are dealing with proteomic expression data that are generated by using high throughput technologies usually involving MS [1318]. LCMS is used in proteomics as a method for identification and quantification of peptides and proteins in complex mixtures [19,20]. There are two basic proteomics approaches, namely bottomup and topdown [10,21]. The most common proteomics approach is the bottomup in which proteins in a sample are enzymatically digested into peptides and subjected to chromatographic separation, ionization and mass analysis. In the topdown approach, intact proteins are introduced into MS where they are subjected to fragmentation. Further, the quantification of peptides/proteins may be either labelfree or labelled (metabolic, enzymatic, or chemical) to detect differences in protein abundances among different conditions [2225]. In labelfree quantification, MS ion intensity (peak area) and spectral counting of features are the major approaches. Conversely, topdown proteomics addresses the study of intact proteins and consequently is most often used to address purified or partially purified proteins [26]. Here, we are dealing with the bottomup approach in which peak area values have been used in labelfree quantification of proteins. Various approaches exist for proteomics data analysis in which the first step is to summarize the intensities of all features using a quantitative summary followed by some transformation such as log transformation to approximate it to normal distribution. However, each of these methods has several drawbacks which can be studied by examining the statistical properties of these methods [2729]. When a data set contains an equal number of subjects in each group, and when features have no missing observations, the data set is called balanced. It is not always the condition; sometimes the data can be unbalanced, having an unequal number of subjects, or missing observations, or both. MVs in proteomics data can occur due to biological and/or technical issues. These are of three types: (i) missing completely at random (MCAR) in which MVs are independent of both unobserved and observed data; (ii) missing at random (MAR) if conditional on the observed data, the MVs are independent of the missing measurements; and (iii) missing not at random (MNAR) when data is neither MCAR nor MAR [30]. The data with missing observations can be analyzed either by excluding the features having missing observations, by using statistical methods that can handle unbalanced data, or by using imputation methods. If the features having missing observations are excluded, then there is loss of information from the experiment. Therefore, the use of methods that can handle MVs, such as imputation methods, are generally preferred. However, the use of imputation methods may lead to wrong interpretation and still these methods are questionable in statistical terms [31,32]. The data set usually consists of biological replicates only or both biological and technical replicates. Biological variability arises from genetic and environmental factors; it is intrinsic to all organisms. The technical approaches include sample collection and storage, sample preparation, extraction, LC separation and MS detection [20]. Sometimes, variations in the biological data or technical approaches to data collection lead to heterogeneity for the samples under study [33,34]. We performed analysis of laser capture microdissection (LCMD)LCMS highresolution proteomics dataset using multifactor ANOVA model. We studied the variability in the data based on different TSMs and TEMs. We estimated the contribution of various sources of variation to the overall variability. The study of data variability was done using various analysis methods and transformation and/or normalization techniques. In this paper, we investigated the technical effects of sample preparation and the quantitative MS resulting in heterogeneity for low abundant protein quantification. This will improve the biomarker discovery studies utilizing limited bioreposited tissue resources. We have done all the statistical analysis in R [35] and codes are available from the authors on request.
Methods
Proteomics experiment
Data for the methods used in the collection, extraction, and proteomic analysis have previously been published under Hobeika L et al. [36]. Individual data files for MS data (.RAW), peak lists (.mgf), and compressed search results (.mzIdentML) files can be downloaded from the MassIVE data repository (http://massive.ucsd.edu/; MassIVE ID: MSV000079914) and ProteomeXchange data repository [37] (http://www.proteomexchange.org/; ID: PXD004601). For consideration of variability of the feature detection and MVs abbreviated methods for these studies are provided below.
Tissue collection: FR and FFPE tissue from the same human kidney unsuitable for transplant were cut into 10 μm sections on Polyethylene terephthalate membrane frame slides, stained with Mayer’s hematoxylin and glomerular tissue compartments isolated using a Leica LMD6500 Laser Microdissection System.
Protein extraction: Experiments were conducted to compare a single tissue solubilization step using an acid labile surfactant to approaches for tissue decellularization. The single step method used the acidlabile surfactant Protease MAX surfactant with heating (MAX). Two tissue decellularization methods incorporated sequential decellularization with solubilization of the residual pellet with MAX. First tissue decellularization approach used 0.4% SDS + HALT protease/phosphatase inhibitor cocktail (Thermo Fisher) followed by solubilization of residual “ECM” pellet using MAX (SDS.MAX). Second tissue decellularization approach used sequential decellularization with 25mM NH4OH/ 0.5%TritonX100 (TX) followed by solubilization of residual “ECM” pellet using MAX (TX.MAX). As described in Hobeika L et al. [36], the tryptic peptides were analyzed using a LCMS Orbitrap ELITE approach with peptide assignments using a Mascot/Sequest search strategy. Scaffold4 was used to set false discovery rate (FDR) control. Finally, we obtained a labelfree quantified data of identified proteins (Supplementary File 1). Please see more details about the experimental procedures in “Supplementary File 2”. We analyzed the data for comparing statistical methods with MVs in the presence of heterogeneity.
Proteomics data analysis
The purpose of this study is to (1) compare variability between (a) tissue storage methods (TSMs) and (b) tissue extraction methods (TEMs); (2) compare various statistical approaches of analysis and normalization methods.
We have two TSMs (FR and FFPE) and three TEMs (MAX, TX.MAX, SDS.MAX) with three replicates and two MS runs leading to 36 samples (total number of samples = 2 × 3 × 3 × 2 = 36). A flow chart of the experiment is given below in Figure 1.
In the above flowchart, we have shown the basic steps of carrying out the experiment involving TSMs and TEMs. We have repeated the MS two times to get more reliable results for estimating experimental variability. We obtained the following six groups as given below in the Table 1. There are three replicates for each of the six groups thus leading to 18 samples. Then, we have repeated the MS two times for the 18 samples and we obtained six samples for each of the six groups.
FR  FFPE  
Direct  MAX  1 (FR_MAX)  4 (FFPE_MAX) 
Sequential Extraction  TX.MAX  2 (FR_TX.MAX)  5 (FFPE_TX.MAX) 
SDS.MAX  3 (FR_SDS.MAX)  6 (FFPE_SDS.MAX) 
Table 1: Table showing different groups under study.
Data preprocessing: Initially, there were 728 proteins identified in both runs, 380 proteins identified in run 1 only and 342 proteins identified in run 2 only. There was a total of 1450 identified proteins out of which 1376 proteins were unique, and 37 proteins were redundant and duplicate entries were removed from the data. Furthermore, there were 111 proteins for which all the samples have NA values (MVs). Therefore, we are left with protein data with 1302 proteins that correspond to 1178 gene symbols (Supplementary File 1). The percentage of NA values within each sample (36 samples) ranges from 41.3%78.3% with a median value of 49.5%. As we have a greater number of groups, therefore it is difficult to perform analysis with this data having MVs. If we discard the proteins having any MVs in any of the samples in a group, then there will be only 26 proteins available. Another way is to retain the proteins having at least one or two observations in each group. A summary of number of proteins available in each group is given below in Table 2. If we use the number of proteins having at least one observation in a group, then we can assess a greater number of proteins. However, we need at least two observations in each group to calculate CV for a protein in each group. Therefore, we used 372 proteins which have at least two observations in each of the six groups for further analysis.
Groups  No. of proteins with no MVs  No. of proteins with MVs in all samples  No. of proteins with at least one observation  No. of proteins with at least two observations 

FR_MAX  448  205  1097  995 
FR_TX.MAX  357  324  978  881 
FR_SDS.MAX  170  678  624  454 
FFPE_MAX  373  295  1007  874 
FFPE_TX.MAX  353  261  1041  890 
FFPE_SDS.MAX  381  237  1065  920 
Table 2: Summary of number of proteins and missing values in different groups.
Statistical approaches: The analysis of proteomics data becomes more complex due to nonnormality behavior of the data, and greater proportion of MVs within and across the samples. To get a better insight of proteomics data analysis while dealing with these problems, we have performed the analysis using three methods as given below:
A1. Method for data excluding missing values: Proteins having complete observations for all the samples, i.e., no MVs, were used for comparison. Proteins having MVs were discarded from the analysis.
A2. Method for data including missing values: The proteins with MVs across the samples were analyzed using unbalanced ANOVA method [38].
A3. Method for data using imputation: The MVs were imputed after applying the normalization methods to the data [39] as given in next section. We have used the “impute. MAR” function of the R package “imputeLCMD” [40] for imputing the MVs. Three different types of imputation under the assumption of MAR or MCAR, namely, MLE [41], SVD [42] and KNN [43,44] are available in this package. We have used only the SVD method (A3) for imputation.
We applied three different data transformation and/or normalization methods:
N1. Logarithmic transformation: The raw data is transformed by using logarithmic base 2.
N2. Quantile normalization: It is done by using log base 2 transformation of raw data followed by “normalize.quantiles” method [45] available in R package “preprocessCore” [46].
N3. Variance stabilizing normalization: It is done by applying “justvsn” function available in R package “vsn” [47] to the raw data.
Therefore, by using three methods of analysis (A1, A2 and A3) based on three transformation and/or normalization methods (N1, N2 and N3), we have 9 different combinations (statistical approaches): excluding MVs (A1.N1, A1.N2, A1.N3); including MVs (A2.N1, A2.N2, A2.N3); imputing MVs (A3.N1, A3.N2, A3.N3). We preprocessed the data using these methods to get 9 different datasets (preprocessed data) for 6 groups having 6 samples in each group. We calculated the coefficient of variation (CV) for each protein in the groups: TSM (FR vs. FFPE), TEM (MAX vs. TX.MAX vs. SDS. MAX) and TSM×TEM (FR_MAX, FR_TX.MAX, FR_SDS.MAX, FFPE_MAX, FFPE_TX.MAX, FFPE_SDS.MAX). It has two purposes: (i) Which TSM/ TEM/ TSM×TEM have the minimum CV based on different statistical approaches; (ii) Which statistical approach leads to the minimum CV. We have used ANOVA model as given below for studying the contribution of variability due of TSM, TEM and the interaction term TSM×TEM:
(1)
where, yijk is the transformed and/or normalized data for a protein, α_{i}(i=1,2) is the j^{th} TSM effect, β _{j} (j =1,2,3) is the j^{th} TEM effect and (αβ )_{ij} is the interaction effect, TSM×TEM. The term ε_{ijk} is the normally distributed error component and ε_{ijk} ∼ N (0, σ^{2} ) . The mapping of the above model to the experimental design allows us to estimate the contribution due to each source of variation for each protein.
Results And Discussion
Comparison of CV among various groups
We have 141, 372 and 372 proteins obtained by using the analysis methods A1, A2 and A3, respectively. The summary of CV using 9 different statistical approaches for comparisons among TSMs and TEMs is shown below in Table 3. The summary of CV using 9 different statistical approaches for comparisons among six groups of TSM×TEM is shown below in Table 4.
TSM  TEM  

FR  FFPE  MAX  TX.MAX  SDS.MAX  
MV Excluded  A1.N1  6.92 (2.23, 12.77) 
2.76 (2.00, 9.49) 
3.25 (1.93, 9.64) 
3.26 (2.05, 15.90) 
7.40 (2.38, 15.24) 
A1.N2  6.29 (0.52, 12.50) 
1.30 (0.55, 5.10) 
1.94 (0.34, 9.02) 
1.91 (0.32, 12.67) 
6.74 (0.59, 14.99) 

A1.N3  6.25 (0.95, 12.51) 
1.28 (0.48, 8.31) 
2.03 (0.28, 9.33) 
1.95 (0.26, 15.21) 
6.81 (1.05, 15.01) 

MV Included  A2.N1  7.08 (1.23, 12.77) 
2.92 (0.83, 11) 
3.50 (0.65, 12.21) 
3.49 (0.73, 15.90) 
7.53 (0.23, 16.95) 
A2.N2  6.62 (0.39, 12.51) 
1.75 (0.52, 9.13) 
2.71 (0.16, 12.16) 
2.49 (0.32, 14.42) 
7.17 (0.42, 16.48) 

A2.N3  6.68 (0.80, 12.49) 
1.73 (0.47, 11.16) 
2.71 (0.28, 11.61) 
2.55 (0.20, 15.22) 
7.21 (0.76, 15.54) 

MV Imputed  A3.N1  7.72 (2.23, 17.47) 
3.29 (1.70, 15.28) 
4.03 (1.79, 15.49) 
3.87 (1.72, 15.90) 
8.03 (2.38, 18.01) 
A3.N2  7.10 (0.39, 15.96) 
2.15 (0.52, 13.60) 
3.10 (0.45, 14.64) 
2.98 (0.38, 14.42) 
7.35 (0.56, 19.25) 

A3.N3  7.07 (1.01, 18.34) 
2.13 (0.47, 13.64) 
3.10 (0.33, 16.02) 
3.04 (0.28, 15.22) 
7.35 (1.08, 18.68) 
Table 3: Summary of CV using 9 statistical approaches among TSM and TEM.
FR_  FR_  FR_  FFPE_  FFPE_  FFPE_  

MAX  TX.MAX  SDS.MAX  MAX  TX.MAX  SDS.MAX  
MV Excluded  A1.N1  2.64 (1.34, 8.62) 
2.71 (0.83, 9.95) 
4.73 (2.25, 12.90) 
3.00 (1.96, 7.14) 
2.87 (2.08, 13.80) 
2.34 (0.75, 8.34) 
A1.N2  0.87 (0.12, 6.26) 
1.05 (0.18, 9.09) 
2.32 (0.22, 10.55) 
0.87 (0, 5.12) 
0.96 (0, 7.28) 
0.85 (0, 8.13) 

A1.N3  0.77 (0.17, 7.53) 
1.01 (0.13, 9.87) 
2.37 (0.32, 11.92) 
0.84 (0.12, 6.14) 
0.95 (0.18, 11.75) 
0.83 (0.10, 8.10) 

MV Included  A2.N1  2.64 (0.05, 11.71) 
2.81 (0.14, 10.93) 
4.49 (0.03, 19.81) 
2.97 (0.09, 13.33) 
3.01 (0.15, 13.8) 
2.41 (0.17, 17.14) 
A2.N2  1.08 (0, 10.62) 
1.47 (0, 9.33) 
2.88 (0.07, 16.32) 
1.28 (0, 10.50) 
1.32 (0, 12.62) 
1.14 (0, 13.32) 

A2.N3  1.09 (0.04, 9.67) 
1.39 (0.04, 9.87) 
2.44 (0.02, 17.52) 
1.28 (0.01, 9.55) 
1.41 (0.12, 12.45) 
1.19 (0.07, 17.72) 

MV Imputed  A3.N1  2.94 (0.95, 16.56) 
3.26 (0.83, 15.27) 
5.06 (2.25, 17.75) 
3.40 (1.34, 16.87) 
3.33 (0.62, 15.62) 
2.86 (0.69, 16.21) 
A3.N2  1.59 (0.24, 17.06) 
1.83 (0.06, 14.28) 
2.77 (0.20, 19.86) 
1.78 (0.02, 15.03) 
1.70 (0.02, 14.08) 
1.75 (0.03, 14.23) 

A3.N3  1.57 (0.14, 19.00) 
1.82 (0.19, 15.69) 
2.48 (0.32, 17.28) 
1.74 (0.07, 14.88) 
1.7 (0.21, 14.28) 
1.63 (0.16, 15.38) 
Note: The first figure is the median value and the figures inside the parenthesis are respectively, minimum and maximum value.
Table 4: Summary of CV using 9 statistical approaches among six groups of TSM×TEM.
TSM: We found that median value of CV is lowest in FFPE using all the statistical approaches. Furthermore, within FFPE, the normalization method N3 has the minimum value of median CV for each analysis method. Overall, the minimum median CV is for A1.N3 in FFPE.
TEM: We have the minimum median value of CV in TX.MAX. We found A1.N2 has the minimum value of median CV.
TSM×TEM: We have the minimum median value of CV in FR_ MAX followed by FFPE_SDS.MAX using all the approaches. We found A1.N3 has the minimum value of median CV in all the groups except for A1.N2 in FR_SDS.MAX. Overall, the minimum median CV is for A1.N3 in group FR_MAX.
Based on median CV, FFPE is a better choice than FR using all the statistical approaches. Similarly, among TSMs, TX.MAX has the least CV and can be a better choice. However, based on the maximum value of CV, MAX is a better choice for TEM. If we consider approaches (A2 & A3) having greater number of proteins and TEM within FFPE, we see that A3.N3 in FFPE_SDS.MAX is having the least median CV (1.63).
Contribution of Sum of Squares (SS) due to each component
The percent contribution of SS due to each variable to the total SS was computed for each protein. A summary of contribution of each variable to the total variability is given below in Table 5. We found that the TSM has the least contribution to the total variability whereas interaction term has the maximum contribution (SS_{TSM} < SS_{TEM} < SS_{TSM×TEM} ). The imputation method leads to decrease in the SS contribution due to each variable. The proportion of proteins showing significant effects due to TSM, TEM and TSM×TEM using 9 different approaches are given below Table 6. The proportion of proteins showing significant effects due to TSM and TEM and their interaction vary with each statistical approach. The TSM has the least proportion of significant proteins as compared to those of TEM and TSM×TEM. This shows that TSM has the least influence. Furthermore, the imputation approach has the least proportion of significant proteins. This shows that imputation of MVs is a better approach for analysis as it leads to reduction in variability and increase in the number of proteins assessed for analysis.
SSTSM  SSTEM  SSTSM×TEM  

MV Excluded  A1.N1  9.86 (0, 68.98) 
20.9 (0.47, 36.32) 
32.87 (0.29, 54.41) 
A1.N2  14.71 (0, 78.88) 
27.49 (1.35, 48.44) 
43.21 (0.92, 64.54) 

A1.N3  15.05 (0, 73.78) 
26.7 (2.31, 44.92) 
41.88 (0.59, 65.23) 

MV Included  A2.N1  10.84 (0, 83.65) 
20.97 (0.08, 49.47) 
33.46 (0.29, 78.05) 
A2.N2  12.59 (0, 85) 
25.56 (0.06, 54.68) 
39.37 (0.08, 80.29) 

A2.N3  12.84 (0, 88.18) 
25.72 (0.04, 53.37) 
40.32 (0.06, 77.54) 

MV Imputed  A3.N1  8.52 (0, 73.76) 
18.83 (0, 40.46) 
29.86 (0.09, 57.77) 
A3.N2  11.07 (0, 85.67) 
23.53 (0.03, 50.93) 
37.33 (0.05, 65.75) 

A3.N3  11.18 (0, 85.31) 
23.32 (0, 49.68) 
37.26 (0.14, 65.32) 
Table 5: Summary of the contribution of % SS due to TSM, TEM and TSM×TEM.
NTSM  NTEM  NTSM×TEM  

MV Excluded  A1.N1  0.65/ 0.62/ 0.33  0.77/ 0.76/ 0.5  0.77/ 0.77/ 0.65 
A1.N2  0.84/ 0.84/ 0.72  0.91/ 0.91/ 0.77  0.89/ 0.88/ 0.78  
A1.N3  0.82/ 0.82/ 0.71  0.87/ 0.87/ 0.72  0.87/ 0.85/ 0.77  
MV Included  A2.N1  0.61/ 0.57/ 0.25  0.72/ 0.72/ 0.28  0.79/ 0.79/ 0.49 
A2.N2  0.75/ 0.73/ 0.48  0.83/ 0.82/ 0.58  0.87/ 0.87/ 0.68  
A2.N3  0.74/ 0.74/ 0.52  0.81/ 0.81/ 0.6  0.85/ 0.84/ 0.67  
MV Imputed  A3.N1  0.58/ 0.53/ 0.24  0.69/ 0.67/ 0.35  0.78/ 0.77/ 0.52 
A3.N2  0.71/ 0.68/ 0.48  0.81/ 0.8/ 0.58  0.86/ 0.85/ 0.69  
A3.N3  0.7/ 0.69/ 0.49  0.8/ 0.78/ 0.58  0.84/ 0.83/ 0.67 
Note: The result obtained using pvalues corresponding to without adjustment, BH adjusted and Bonferroni adjusted are separated serially by slash “/” in the table.
Table 6: The summary of proportion of proteins showing effects due to the variables: TSM, TEM and TSM×TEM.
Analysis for imputed data using VSN
We used ANOVA to test the significance of proteins based on TSM and TEM. The plot of CV of the proteins in increasing order of pvalues based on A3.N3 for TSM and TEM are respectively given below in Figures 2 and 3. There are respectively 261 and 296 proteins showing significant effects due to TSM and TEM. From Figure 2, we see that FR has more CV as compared to that of FFPE for most of the proteins. From Figure 3, we found SDS.MAX has more CV as compared to those of MAX and TX.MAX. We applied chisquare test for the proteins having significant effects due to TSM and TEM. We found that there is association between the TSM and the CV (pvalue < 0.001). Similarly, in case of TSM, we found that there is association between the variables, TEM and CV (pvalue < 0.001). We found that the FFPE is a better method than that of the FR for tissue storage. Further, we found that MAX, the single step approach is better than those of twostep approach for tissue extraction. The maximum contribution to the total variability is due to the interaction effect TSM×TEM and TEM. The TSMs and TEMs have significant effects on the protein expression. However, the effect due to TSM is the least. In the present article, we have used different analysis and normalization methods for the proteomics data. The number of proteins for testing can be increased by either by including the MVs (A2) or by using imputed data (A3). The imputation method (A3) has the least SS contribution than those of A1 (complete data) and A2 (unbalanced data). We found the least proportion of significant proteins when using the imputation method (A3). The normalization method N1, i.e., only logarithmic transformation is not suited for analyzing the proteomics data. The other normalization methods N2 and N3 having lesser CV can be a better approach.
Conclusion
Our study discussed the technical issues with a focus on the statistical analysis. It will provide better insight to the researchers while designing and executing experiments. There may be small changes caused during sample handling and storage, different batches of buffer, electrospray, instrument components, calibration and tuning, etc. While designing any proteomics experiment, we must identify the technical steps with large variability. Therefore, it becomes necessary to understand the data heterogeneity due to biological variability and technical variability of the proteomics methods at each step. We have made the proteomics data available (Supporting file 1). The researchers involved in proteomics research area can use this data for further study. The data can further be used for planning new proteomics experiments. In the future, we will come up with a rigorous statistical approach using different proteomics dataset that could overcome the heterogeneity problem caused due to technical reasons in the proteomics data with MVs. Finally, we can recommend: (i) FFPE is the better choice than FR for tissue storage, (ii) onestep TEM is better than the twostep TEM, (iii) Imputation method (A3) is the best approach, (iv) N2 or N3 method of normalization should be the preferred choice.
Supporting Information
Supporting File 1: A labelfree quantified data of identified proteins.
Supporting File 2: More details about experimental procedures.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Human kidneys were obtained from deceased donors that were unsuitable for transplantation (courtesy of Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates), as approved by the University of Louisville Human Studies Committee.
Consent for publication
All authors have no conflict or disclosures and provide consent for publication.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding
This work was partially supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P42ES023716 PI: Dr. Sanjay Srivastava) and the National Institute of Health (P20 GM113226 PI: Dr. Craig McClain).
Authors' contributions
Conceptualization of research work by SS, MM and SNR. Data analysis by SS. Interpretation of results and writing of the manuscript by SS, MM and SNR. Valuable suggestions to improve the manuscript by AR and SNR. SS was supported by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Govt. of India through ICARInternational Fellowship. SNR was supported partially by Dr. Jason Chesney, Director, James Graham Brown Cancer Center and Wendell Cherry Chair in Clinical Trial Research.
Acknowledgement
Authors wish to acknowledge the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, India and the University of Louisville, United States of America for providing facilities to carry out the research.
References
 Anderson NL, Anderson NG (1998) Proteome and proteomics: new technologies, new concepts, and new words. Electrophoresis 19: 18531861.
 Wilkins MR (2009) Hares and tortoises: the high versus lowthroughput proteomic race. Electrophoresis 30: S150S155.
 Almeida AM, Bassols A, Bendixen E, Bhide M, Ceciliani F, et al. (2015) Animal board invited review: advances in proteomics for animal and food sciences. Animal 9: 117.
 Fliser D, Novak J, Thongboonkerd V, Argilés A, Jankowski V, et al. (2007) Advances in urinary proteome analysis and biomarker discovery. J Am Soc Nephrol 18: 10571071.
 Hanash S (2003) Disease proteomics. Nature 422: 226232.
 Hu J, Rampitsch C, Bykova NV (2015) Advances in plant proteomics toward improvement of crop productivity and stress resistancex. Front Plant Sci 6: 209.
 Lippolis JD, Reinhardt TA (2010) Utility, limitations, and promise of proteomics in animal science. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 138: 241251.
 McGregor E, Dunn MJ (2006) Proteomics of the heart: unraveling disease. Circ Res 98: 309321.
 Vanderschuren H, Lentz E, Zainuddin I, Gruissem W (2013) Proteomics of model and crop plant species: status, current limitations and strategic advances for crop improvement. J Proteomics 93: 519.
 McLeish KR, Merchant ML, Klein JB, Ward RA (2013) Technical note: proteomic approaches to fundamental questions about neutrophil biology. J Leukoc Biol 94: 683692.
 Gstaiger M, Aebersold R (2009) Applying mass spectrometrybased proteomics to genetics, genomics and network biology. Nat Rev Genet 10: 617627.
 Hathout Y (2007) Approaches to the study of the cell secretome. Expert Rev Proteomics 4: 239248.
 Ducret A, Van Oostveen I, Eng JK, Yates JR, Aebersold R, et al. (1998) High throughput protein characterization by automated reversephase chromatography/electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. Protein Sci 7: 706719.
 Mallick P, Kuster B (2010) Proteomics: a pragmatic perspective. Nat Biotechnol 28: 695709.
 Van Oudenhove L, Devreese B (2013) A review on recent developments in mass spectrometry instrumentation and quantitative tools advancing bacterial proteomics. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97: 47494762.
 Washburn MP, Wolters D, Yates JR (2001) Largescale analysis of the yeast proteome by multidimensional protein identification technology. Nat Biotechnol 19: 242247.
 Wysocki VH, Resing KA, Zhang Q, Cheng G (2005) Mass spectrometry of peptides and proteins. Methods 35: 211222.
 Zhang G, Annan RS, Carr SA, Neubert TA (2014) Overview of peptide and protein analysis by mass spectrometry. Curr Protoc Mol Biol 108: 10.21.110.21.30.
 Pitt JJ (2009) Principles and applications of liquid chromatographymass spectrometry in clinical biochemistry. Clin Biochem Rev 30: 1934.
 Xu F, Zou L, Liu Y, Zhang Z, Ong CN, et al. (2011) Enhancement of the capabilities of liquid chromatographymass spectrometry with derivatization: general principles and applications. Mass Spectrom Rev 30: 11431172.
 Chait BT (2006) Chemistry. Mass spectrometry: bottomup or topdown? Science 314: 6566.
 Ong SE, Mann M (2005) Mass spectrometrybased proteomics turns quantitative. Nat Chem Biol 1: 252262.
 Bantscheff M, Lemeer S, Savitski MM, Kuster B (2012) Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: critical review update from 2007 to the present. Anal Bioanal Chem 404: 939965.
 Bantscheff M, Schirle M, Sweetman G, Rick J, Kuster B, et al. (2007) Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: a critical review. Anal Bioanal Chem 389: 10171031.
 Xie F, Liu T, Qian WJ, Petyuk VA, Smith RD, et al. (2011) Liquid chromatographymass spectrometrybased quantitative proteomics. J Biol Chem 286: 2544325449.
 Toby TK, Fornelli L, Kelleher NL (2016) Progress in TopDown Proteomics and the Analysis of Proteoforms. Annu Rev Anal Chem 9: 499519.
 Clough T, Key M, Ott I, Ragg S, Schadow G, et al. (2009) Protein quantification in labelfree LCMS experiments. J Proteome Res 8: 52755284.
 Clough T, Thaminy S, Ragg S, Aebersold R, Vitek O, et al. (2012) Statistical protein quantification and significance analysis in labelfree LCMS experiments with complex designs. BMC Bioinformatics 13: S6.
 Serang O, Kall L (2015) Solution to Statistical Challenges in Proteomics Is More Statistics, Not Less. J Proteome Res 14: 40994103.
 Rubin DB (1976) Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63: 581592.
 Schwammle V, Leon IR, Jensen ON (2013) Assessment and improvement of statistical tools for comparative proteomics analysis of sparse data sets with few experimental replicates. J Proteome Res 12: 38743883.
 WebbRobertson BJ, Wiberg HK, Matzke MM, Brown JN, Wang J, et al. (2015) Review, evaluation, and discussion of the challenges of missing value imputation for mass spectrometrybased labelfree global proteomics. J Proteome Res 14: 19932001.
 Piehowski PD, Petyuk VA, Orton DJ, Xie F, Moore RJ, et al. (2013) Sources of technical variability in quantitative LCMS proteomics: human brain tissue sample analysis. J Proteome Res 12: 21282137.
 Glaab E, Schneider R (2015) RepExplore: addressing technical replicate variance in proteomics and metabolomics data analysis. Bioinformatics 31: 22352237.
 R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
 Hobeika L, Barati MT, Caster DJ, McLeish KR, Merchant ML, et al. (2017) Characterization of glomerular extracellular matrix by proteomic analysis of lasercaptured microdissected glomeruli. Kidney Int 91: 501511.
 Vizcaino JA, Deutsch EW, Wang R, Csordas A, Reisinger F, et al. (2014) ProteomeXchange provides globally coordinated proteomics data submission and dissemination. Nat Biotechnol 32: 223226.
 Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An {R} Companion to Applied Regression (Second ed). Thousand Oaks CA, SAGE.
 Karpievitch YV, Dabney AR, Smith RD (2012) Normalization and missing value imputation for labelfree LCMS analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 13: S5.
 Lazar C (2015) imputeLCMD: A collection of methods for leftcensored missing data imputation. R package version 2.0.
 Ported to R by Novo AA. Original by Schafer JL (2013) norm: Analysis of multivariate normal datasets with missing values. R package version 1.09.5.
 Stacklies W, Redestig H, Scholz M, Walther D, Selbig J, et al. (2007) pcaMethodsa bioconductor package providing PCA methods for incomplete data. Bioinformatics 23: 11641167.
 Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Sherlock G, Eisen M, Brown P, et al. (1999) Imputing Missing Data for Gene Expression Arrays. Technical Report. Stanford University Statistics Department.
 Troyanskaya O, Cantor M, Sherlock G, Brown P, Hastie T, et al. (2001) Missing value estimation methods for DNA microarrays. Bioinformatics 17: 520525.
 Bolstad BM, Irizarry RA, Astrand M, Speed TP (2003) A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics 19: 185193.
 Bolstad B (2017) preprocessCore: A collection of preprocessing functions. R package version 1.40.0.
 Huber W, von Heydebreck A, Sultmann H, Poustka A, Vingron M, et al. (2002) Variance stabilization applied to microarray data calibration and to the quantification of differential expression. Bioinformatics 18: S96S104.
Citation: Srivastava S, Merchant M, Rai A, Rai SN (2019) Standardizing Proteomics Workflow for Liquid ChromatographyMass Spectrometry: Technical and Statistical Considerations. J Proteomics Bioinform 12: 048055. DOI: 10.4172/0974276X.1000496
Copyright: © 2019 Srivastava S, et al. This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.