↓ Skip to main content

ProtQuant: a tool for the label-free quantification of MudPIT proteomics data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
ProtQuant: a tool for the label-free quantification of MudPIT proteomics data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-8-s7-s24
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan M Bridges, G Bryce Magee, Nan Wang, W Paul Williams, Shane C Burgess, Bindu Nanduri

Abstract

Effective and economical methods for quantitative analysis of high throughput mass spectrometry data are essential to meet the goals of directly identifying, characterizing, and quantifying proteins from a particular cell state. Multidimensional Protein Identification Technology (MudPIT) is a common approach used in protein identification. Two types of methods are used to detect differential protein expression in MudPIT experiments: those involving stable isotope labelling and the so-called label-free methods. Label-free methods are based on the relationship between protein abundance and sampling statistics such as peptide count, spectral count, probabilistic peptide identification scores, and sum of peptide Sequest XCorr scores (SigmaXCorr). Although a number of label-free methods for protein quantification have been described in the literature, there are few publicly available tools that implement these methods. We describe ProtQuant, a Java-based tool for label-free protein quantification that uses the previously published SigmaXCorr method for quantification and includes an improved method for handling missing data.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Sweden 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
India 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 59 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 32%
Researcher 16 23%
Professor 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Chemistry 6 9%
Computer Science 5 7%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 6 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2014.
All research outputs
#7,454,298
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,023
of 7,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,827
of 76,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#20
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 76,772 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.