Data Variance and Statistical Significance in 2D-Gel Electrophoresis and DIGE Experiments: Comparison of the Effects of Normalization Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying changes in the relative abundance of proteins between different biological samples is often confounded by technical noise. In this work, we compared eight normalization methods commonly used in two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and difference gel electrophoresis (DIGE) experiments for their ability to reduce noise and for their influence on the list of proteins whose difference in abundance between two samples is determined to be statistically significant. With respect to reducing noise we find that, while all methods improve upon unnormalized data, cyclic linear normalization is the least well suited to gel-based proteomics and the performances of the other methods are similar. We also find in DIGE data that the choice of normalization method has less of an impact on the noise than does the decision to use an internal reference in the experimental design and that both normalization and standardization using the internal reference are required to maximally reduce variance. Despite the similar noise reduction achieved by most normalization methods, the list of proteins whose abundance was determined to differ significantly between biological groups differed depending on the choice of normalization method. This work provides a direct comparison of the impact of normalization methods in the context of common experimental designs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".