Back

Is Protein Quantification and Physical Normalization Always Necessary in Proteomics?

Zelter, A.; Riffle, M.; Merrihew, G. E.; Mutawe, B.; Maurais, A.; Inman, J. L.; Celniker, S. E.; Mao, J.-H.; Wan, K. H.; Snijders, A. M.; Wu, C. C.; MacCoss, M. J.

2026-02-15 biochemistry
10.64898/2026.02.13.705808 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Dogma suggests protein quantification is a pre-requisite to LC-MS/MS based proteomics studies. Such quantification allows a standardized ratio of sample to digestion enzyme and enables physical normalization of protein digest loaded onto the mass spectrometer for analysis. Most proteomics studies include these steps. However, there are significant costs in time, money and experimental complexity, associated with performing protein quantification and physical normalization for every sample, especially for larger studies. Proteomics data analysis pipelines typically include computational normalization strategies to compensate for unavoidable systematic biases. These strategies also have the potential to compensate for avoidable variation such as omitting sample amount normalization. Here we investigate the effects of either physically normalizing the amount of protein for each individual sample or leaving it unnormalized. Our results show the relationship between increased protein amount variation in sample input, and the variance of quantified relative abundances of peptides and proteins output after data analysis. The experiments presented here suggest that protein quantification and physical normalization steps can be omitted from some quantitative proteomic experiments without incurring an unacceptable increase in measurement variability after computational normalization has been applied. This work will enable important time and cost saving optimizations to be made to many proteomics workflows.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Proteome Research
215 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.7%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.6%
3
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
158 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.0%
4
PROTEOMICS
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Proteomics
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
6
Analytica Chimica Acta
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
7
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.7%
8
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
9
Analytical Biochemistry
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
10
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
11
Talanta
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
12
SoftwareX
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
13
Clinical Proteomics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
14
Molecular Omics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
15
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
16
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
17
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
18
The Analyst
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
19
ACS Omega
90 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
Methods
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
22
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
23
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%