Evaluation of statistical approaches for differential metaproteomics
Hinzke, T.; Kunath, B. J.; Blakeley-Ruiz, J. A.; Korenek, A.; Vintila, S.; Wilmes, P.; Kleiner, M.
Show abstract
BackgroundMetaproteomics characterizes and compares molecular phenotypes of organisms in communities by comprehensively analyzing their protein expression profiles using statistical methods. However, not all statistical methods are suitable for determining differentially abundant protein groups in metaproteomic analyses. Statistical challenges in metaproteomics include: data sparsity, non-normality, compositionality, and large between-sample variability. These challenges can potentially be addressed with several data processing steps, including imputation, normalization, transformation, and selection of the appropriate statistical tests. The potential combinations of different processing methods create a complex matrix of analysis options and it is currently unclear how these combinations impact the results of statistical tests on metaproteomic data. ResultsTo determine what data processing methods and statistical tests are best for identifying differentially abundant proteins in metaproteomics datasets, we generated a set of thirteen metaproteomic samples with known compositions, known differences, and differing levels of complexity. These defined metaproteomes address the general challenges outlined above, using various scenarios in metaproteomic data analyses. We compared over 110 different statistical analysis combination options, including regression-based tools, general statistics inference, and machine learning techniques. We found that several combinations within the frameworks of limma, edgeR, MaAslin2, custom linear and Bayesian linear models, and random forests all offer suitable evaluation options. ConclusionsWe highlight key recommendations for differential expression analysis in metaproteomics. Our work enables improved assessment of statistical methods for metaproteomics by establishing a framework for testing statistical approaches, including comprehensive raw mass spectrometry data and reproducible benchmarking code.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Peptonizer2000: bringing confidence to metaproteomics 95%
- prolfqua: A Comprehensive R-package for Proteomics Differential Expression Analysis 95%
- Biological Function Assignment Across Taxonomic Levels in Mass-Spectrometry-Based Metaproteomics via a Modified Expectation Maximization Algorithm 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting the presence and abundance of bacterial taxa in environmental communities through flow cytometric fingerprinting 94%
- Lost and found: re-searching and re-scoring proteomics data aids the discovery of bacterial proteins and improves proteome coverage 94%
- Harnessing machine learning to unravel protein degradation in Escherichia coli 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- VIQoR: a web service for Visually supervised protein Inference and protein Quantification 94%
- LimROTS: A Hybrid Method Integrating Empirical Bayes and Reproducibility-Optimized Statistics for Robust Differential Expression Analysis 94%
- MegaPX: fast and space-efficient peptide assignment method using IBF-based multi-indexing 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative metaproteomics demonstrates different views on the complex granular sludge microbiome 92%
- L-norepinephrine Induces Community Shift, Oxidative Stress Response, Metabolic Reprogramming, and Virulence Potential in Wastewater Microbiomes 92%
- Triangulation of microbial fingerprinting in anaerobic digestion reveals consistent fingerprinting profiles 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.