Multiple testing corrections in quantitative proteomics: a useful but blunt tool

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Multiple testing corrections are a useful tool for restricting the FDR, but can be blunt in the context of low power, as we demonstrate by a series of simple simulations. Unfortunately, in proteomics experiments low power can be common, driven by proteomics-specific issues like small effects due to ratio compression, and few replicates due to reagent high cost, instrument time availability and other issues; in such situations, most multiple testing corrections methods, if used with conventional thresholds, will fail to detect any true positives even when many exist. In this low power, medium scale situation, other methods such as effect size considerations or peptide-level calculations may be a more effective option, even if they do not offer the same theoretical guarantee of a low FDR. Thus, we aim to highlight in this article that proteomics presents some specific challenges to the standard multiple testing corrections methods, which should be employed as a useful tool but not be regarded as a required rubber stamp.

LanguageEnglish
Pages2448-2453
Number of pages6
JournalProteomics
Volume16
Issue number18
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2016

Fingerprint

Proteomics
Testing
Rubber
Availability
Costs and Cost Analysis
Peptides
Costs
Experiments

Cite this

@article{5bca3b3066aa4a1b8a74fd5e71f50eb7,
title = "Multiple testing corrections in quantitative proteomics: a useful but blunt tool",
abstract = "Multiple testing corrections are a useful tool for restricting the FDR, but can be blunt in the context of low power, as we demonstrate by a series of simple simulations. Unfortunately, in proteomics experiments low power can be common, driven by proteomics-specific issues like small effects due to ratio compression, and few replicates due to reagent high cost, instrument time availability and other issues; in such situations, most multiple testing corrections methods, if used with conventional thresholds, will fail to detect any true positives even when many exist. In this low power, medium scale situation, other methods such as effect size considerations or peptide-level calculations may be a more effective option, even if they do not offer the same theoretical guarantee of a low FDR. Thus, we aim to highlight in this article that proteomics presents some specific challenges to the standard multiple testing corrections methods, which should be employed as a useful tool but not be regarded as a required rubber stamp.",
author = "Dana Pascovici and Handler, {David C L} and Wu, {Jemma X.} and Haynes, {Paul A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/pmic.201600044",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "2448--2453",
journal = "Proteomics",
issn = "1615-9853",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss, Wiley",
number = "18",

}

Multiple testing corrections in quantitative proteomics : a useful but blunt tool. / Pascovici, Dana; Handler, David C L; Wu, Jemma X.; Haynes, Paul A.

In: Proteomics, Vol. 16, No. 18, 01.09.2016, p. 2448-2453.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Multiple testing corrections in quantitative proteomics

T2 - Proteomics

AU - Pascovici, Dana

AU - Handler, David C L

AU - Wu, Jemma X.

AU - Haynes, Paul A.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Multiple testing corrections are a useful tool for restricting the FDR, but can be blunt in the context of low power, as we demonstrate by a series of simple simulations. Unfortunately, in proteomics experiments low power can be common, driven by proteomics-specific issues like small effects due to ratio compression, and few replicates due to reagent high cost, instrument time availability and other issues; in such situations, most multiple testing corrections methods, if used with conventional thresholds, will fail to detect any true positives even when many exist. In this low power, medium scale situation, other methods such as effect size considerations or peptide-level calculations may be a more effective option, even if they do not offer the same theoretical guarantee of a low FDR. Thus, we aim to highlight in this article that proteomics presents some specific challenges to the standard multiple testing corrections methods, which should be employed as a useful tool but not be regarded as a required rubber stamp.

AB - Multiple testing corrections are a useful tool for restricting the FDR, but can be blunt in the context of low power, as we demonstrate by a series of simple simulations. Unfortunately, in proteomics experiments low power can be common, driven by proteomics-specific issues like small effects due to ratio compression, and few replicates due to reagent high cost, instrument time availability and other issues; in such situations, most multiple testing corrections methods, if used with conventional thresholds, will fail to detect any true positives even when many exist. In this low power, medium scale situation, other methods such as effect size considerations or peptide-level calculations may be a more effective option, even if they do not offer the same theoretical guarantee of a low FDR. Thus, we aim to highlight in this article that proteomics presents some specific challenges to the standard multiple testing corrections methods, which should be employed as a useful tool but not be regarded as a required rubber stamp.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988369559&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/pmic.201600044

DO - 10.1002/pmic.201600044

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 2448

EP - 2453

JO - Proteomics

JF - Proteomics

SN - 1615-9853

IS - 18

ER -