Perseus: A Bioinformatics Platform for Integrative Analysis of Proteomics Data in Cancer Research.

Mass spectrometry-based proteomics is a continuously growing field marked by technological and methodological improvements. Cancer proteomics is aimed at pursuing goals such as accurate diagnosis, patient stratification, and biomarker discovery, relying on the richness of information of quantitative proteome profiles. Translating these high-dimensional data into biological findings of clinical importance necessitates the use of robust and powerful computational tools and methods. In this chapter, we provide a detailed description of standard analysis steps for a clinical proteomics dataset performed in Perseus, a software for functional analysis of large-scale quantitative omics data.

[1]  Mehdi Mesri,et al.  Connecting genomic alterations to cancer biology with proteomics: the NCI Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium. , 2013, Cancer discovery.

[2]  Michael Hummel,et al.  Machine Learning-based Classification of Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma Patients by Their Protein Expression Profiles , 2015, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[3]  Russ B. Altman,et al.  Missing value estimation methods for DNA microarrays , 2001, Bioinform..

[4]  M. Mann,et al.  The coming age of complete, accurate, and ubiquitous proteomes. , 2013, Molecular cell.

[5]  M. Mann,et al.  Super-SILAC mix for quantitative proteomics of human tumor tissue , 2010, Nature Methods.

[6]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[7]  Marco Y. Hein,et al.  The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data , 2016, Nature Methods.

[8]  M. Selbach,et al.  Global quantification of mammalian gene expression control , 2011, Nature.

[9]  M. Mann,et al.  Proteomic maps of breast cancer subtypes , 2016, Nature Communications.

[10]  M. Mann,et al.  Absolute Proteome Analysis of Colorectal Mucosa, Adenoma, and Cancer Reveals Drastic Changes in Fatty Acid Metabolism and Plasma Membrane Transporters. , 2015, Journal of proteome research.

[11]  R. Fisher.  On the Interpretation of χ2 from Contingency Tables, and the Calculation of P , 2018, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society).

[12]  Eytan Ruppin,et al.  System-wide Clinical Proteomics of Breast Cancer Reveals Global Remodeling of Tissue Homeostasis. , 2016, Cell systems.

[13]  Jürgen Cox,et al.  1D and 2D annotation enrichment: a statistical method integrating quantitative proteomics with complementary high-throughput data , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[14]  Laurent Gatto,et al.  Accounting for the Multiple Natures of Missing Values in Label-Free Quantitative Proteomics Data Sets to Compare Imputation Strategies. , 2016, Journal of proteome research.

[15]  Pär Stattin,et al.  The Proteome of Primary Prostate Cancer. , 2016, European urology.

[16]  Jeffrey R. Whiteaker,et al.  Proteogenomic characterization of human colon and rectal cancer , 2014, Nature.

[17]  T. Geiger,et al.  Super-SILAC: current trends and future perspectives , 2015, Expert review of proteomics.

[18]  Marco Y. Hein,et al.  Accurate Proteome-wide Label-free Quantification by Delayed Normalization and Maximal Peptide Ratio Extraction, Termed MaxLFQ * , 2014, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[19]  Michael L. Gatza,et al.  Proteogenomics connects somatic mutations to signaling in breast cancer , 2016, Nature.

[20]  S. Hanash,et al.  The grand challenge to decipher the cancer proteome , 2010, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[21]  M. Mann,et al.  MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[22]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.