Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Nature of False Peptide Identifications in Data-Independent Acquisition-Based Proteome Analysis.

Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry·2026
Same author

Proteasome Inhibition as a Cancer Type-Specific Off-Target Effect of Everolimus in Cancer Cells.

Biochemistry. Biokhimiia·2026
Same author

PTMs_Closed_Search: Multiple Post-Translational Modification Closed Search Using Reduced Search Space and Transferred FDR.

Proteomes·2026
Same author

Mapping protein variants associated with Alzheimer's disease by mass-spectrometry based <i>de novo</i> sequencing assisted strategy.

Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD·2026
Same author

The Role of "Metabolic Instability" as a New Risk Criterion in the Pathogenesis of Endometrial Cancer.

Cancers·2025
Same author

A Novel Ultrahigh-Resolution Y-Injection Multireflecting Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer for Bottom-Up Proteomics.

Analytical chemistry·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 8, 2026

Comprehensive Workflow of Mass Spectrometry-based Shotgun Proteomics of Tissue Samples
14:51

Comprehensive Workflow of Mass Spectrometry-based Shotgun Proteomics of Tissue Samples

Published on: November 13, 2021

6.2K

Comparative evaluation of label-free quantification methods for shotgun proteomics.

Julia A Bubis1,2, Lev I Levitsky1,2, Mark V Ivanov1,2

  • 1Institute for Energy Problems of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119334, Moscow, Russia.

Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry : RCM
|January 19, 2017
PubMed
Summary

This study compared five label-free quantification (LFQ) methods in proteomics. Spectral counting methods performed comparably to more complex extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) approaches, with no single method emerging as a clear leader.

More Related Videos

Deep Proteome Profiling by Isobaric Labeling, Extensive Liquid Chromatography, Mass Spectrometry, and Software-assisted Quantification
10:37

Deep Proteome Profiling by Isobaric Labeling, Extensive Liquid Chromatography, Mass Spectrometry, and Software-assisted Quantification

Published on: November 15, 2017

12.8K
Shotgun Proteomics Sample Processing Automated by an Open-Source Lab Robot
10:12

Shotgun Proteomics Sample Processing Automated by an Open-Source Lab Robot

Published on: October 28, 2021

4.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 8, 2026

Comprehensive Workflow of Mass Spectrometry-based Shotgun Proteomics of Tissue Samples
14:51

Comprehensive Workflow of Mass Spectrometry-based Shotgun Proteomics of Tissue Samples

Published on: November 13, 2021

6.2K
Deep Proteome Profiling by Isobaric Labeling, Extensive Liquid Chromatography, Mass Spectrometry, and Software-assisted Quantification
10:37

Deep Proteome Profiling by Isobaric Labeling, Extensive Liquid Chromatography, Mass Spectrometry, and Software-assisted Quantification

Published on: November 15, 2017

12.8K
Shotgun Proteomics Sample Processing Automated by an Open-Source Lab Robot
10:12

Shotgun Proteomics Sample Processing Automated by an Open-Source Lab Robot

Published on: October 28, 2021

4.3K

Area of Science:

  • Proteomics
  • Quantitative Mass Spectrometry

Background:

  • Label-free quantification (LFQ) is crucial in shotgun proteomics.
  • A lack of comparative studies and standardized evaluation metrics for LFQ algorithms exists.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To comprehensively compare five common LFQ algorithms.
  • To evaluate LFQ method performance using established statistical metrics and a well-characterized dataset.

Main Methods:

  • Compared spectral counting (SIN, emPAI, NSAF) and extracted ion chromatogram (XIC)-based (MaxLFQ, Quanti) LFQ methods.
  • Evaluated performance using coefficient of variation (CV), analysis of variance (ANOVA), and standard quantification error (SQE).
  • Utilized a quantitatively annotated public dataset for comparison.

Main Results:

  • MaxLFQ and NSAF showed the best inter-replicate reproducibility but higher SQE.
  • NSAF correctly identified all annotated proteins via ANOVA.
  • SIN demonstrated the highest accuracy (lowest SQE).
  • XIC-based methods did not outperform spectral counting methods on this dataset.

Conclusions:

  • Surprisingly, XIC-based LFQ methods performed comparably to simpler spectral counting approaches.
  • No single spectral counting method was identified as a definitive leader.
  • The study highlights the need for robust evaluation metrics in LFQ algorithm development.