 Methodology Article
 Open Access
 Published:
Variance component analysis to assess protein quantification in biomarker validation: application to selected reaction monitoringmass spectrometry
BMC Bioinformatics volume 19, Article number: 73 (2018)
Abstract
Background
In the field of biomarker validation with mass spectrometry, controlling the technical variability is a critical issue. In selected reaction monitoring (SRM) measurements, this issue provides the opportunity of using variance component analysis to distinguish various sources of variability. However, in case of unbalanced data (unequal number of observations in all factor combinations), the classical methods cannot correctly estimate the various sources of variability, particularly in presence of interaction. The present paper proposes an extension of the variance component analysis to estimate the various components of the variance, including an interaction component in case of unbalanced data.
Results
We applied an experimental design that uses a serial dilution to generate known relative protein concentrations and estimated these concentrations by two processing algorithms, a classical and a more recent one. The extended method allowed estimating the variances explained by the dilution and the technical process by each algorithm in an experiment with 9 proteins: LFABP, 14.3.3 sigma, Calgi, Def.A6, Villin, Calmo, IFABP, Peroxi5, and S100A14. Whereas, the recent algorithm gave a higher dilution variance and a lower technical variance than the classical one in two proteins with three peptides (LFABP and Villin), there were no significant difference between the two algorithms on all proteins.
Conclusions
The extension of the variance component analysis was able to estimate correctly the variance components of protein concentration measurement in case of unbalanced design.
Background
In the recent years, there has been a growing interest in using high throughput technologies to discover biomarkers. Because of the random sampling of the proteome within populations and the high false discovery rates, it became necessary to validate candidate biomarkers through quantitative assays [1]. ELISAs (EnzymeLinked Immunosorbent Assays) have high specificities (because they often use two antibodies against the candidate biomarker) and high sensitivities that allow quantifying some biomarkers in human plasma. However, the limits with ELISA are the restricted possibility of performing multiple assays, the unavailability of antibodies for every new candidate biomarker, and the long and expensive developments of new assays [2]. The absolute quantification of protein biomarkers by mass spectrometry (MS) has naturally emerged as an alternative [3]. EckelPassow et al. [4] have discussed the difficulties of achieving good repeatability and reproducibility in MS and expressed the need for more research dedicated to proteomics data, including signal processing, experimental design, and statistical analysis.
In selected reaction monitoring (SRM, a specific form of multiple reaction monitoring, MRM) [5], the issues are somewhat different and offer the opportunity to use variance component analysis to investigate repeatability, reproducibility, and other sources of variability [6]. However, when the data are unbalanced (unequal number of observations in all possible factor combinations), classical methods cannot estimate correctly the various sources of variability, particularly in presence of interaction.
The present paper proposes an extension of the variance component analysis via the adjusted sum of squares that estimates correctly the various sources of variability of protein concentration on unbalanced data. This analysis is applied with an experimental design that uses a serial dilution to generate known relative protein concentrations and allows for a few sources of variation. Two processing algorithms, a classical and a more recent one (namely, NLP and BHI, respectively) are used to estimate protein concentration.
This analysis allowed an initial investigation of the performance of the new algorithm and a first comparison with the classical algorithm. In addition, the results given by the two algorithms are compared with those obtained by ELISA.
Methods
Sample preparation
Because the true proteomic profiles in biological samples are unknown, an artificial “biological variability” (herein called “dilution variability”) was generated by serial dilution (an experiment close to the design of Study III by Addona et al. [7]). Twentyone target proteins (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Étoile, France) were considered: 14.3.3 sigma, binding immunoglobin protein (BIP), Calgizzarin or S100 A11 (Calgi), Calmodulin (Calmo), Calreticulin (Calret), Peptidylprolyl cistrans isomerase A (CycloA), Defensin α5 (DefA5), Defensin α6 (Def.A6), Heat shock cognate 71 kDa protein (HSP71), IntestinalFatty Acid Binding Protein (IFABP), LiverFatty Acid Binding Protein (LFABP), Stress70 protein mitochondrial (Mortalin), Protein DisulfideIsomerase (PDI), Protein disulfideisomerase A6 (PDIA6), Phosphoglycerate kinase 1 (PGK1), Retinolbinding protein 4 (PRBP), Peroxiredoxin5 (Peroxi5), S100 calciumbinding protein A14 (S100A14), Triosephosphate isomerase (TPI), Villin1 (Villin), and Vimentin. These proteins were diluted in a pool of human sera (Établissement Français du Sang, Lyon, France). In other words, a parent solution (mixture of target proteins spiked in the pool of human sera) was used at dilutions 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16. This led to the use of six “samples” (serum pool + 5 dilutions). Five aliquots of 250 μL were taken from each sample: four for SRM and one for ELISA. In addition, eight extra aliquots of 250 μL of dilution 1/4 were used to estimate the digestion yield.
Experimental design
The experimental design is shown in Fig. 1. From each aliquot, two vials of 125 μL were taken for separate digestions. Labelled AQUA internal standards were added immediately before SRMMS analysis then two injections (readings) were performed on each vial. SRM readings of the 24 aliquots (6 samples × 2 digestions × 2 injections) were carried out over 4 couples of days. Each set of samples had to be “read” over a couple of days because of equipmentrelated constraints (SRM does not allow analyzing all the samples in a single day). To avoid unexpected or uncontrolled biases, sample reading was made at random and two chromatographic columns were alternately used (for more details on SRM, see Additional file 1).
In the methodology associated with BHI algorithm, we used quality control (QC) measurements made daily before peptide reading to estimate the digestion yield. In parallel, each “extra” aliquot of dilution 1/4 was used on one reading day as QC measurement. From each “extra” aliquot, two vials of 125 μL were taken for digestion. The two vials were passed one at the start and the other at the end of the day then each vial was injected two times leading to the calibration of four digestion yields per day. The estimation of protein concentration with BHI algorithm on a given day changes according to the digestion yield estimated the same day.
With the classical NLP algorithm, the number of readings per sample was 16 (4 aliquots × 2 digestions × 2 injections). With the BHI algorithm, the number of readings per sample was 64 (4 aliquots × 2 digestions × 2 injections × 4 digestion yields).
For ELISA measurement of LiverFatty Acid Binding Protein (LFABP), each sample provided five replicates. Each replicate was read four times leading to 20 readings per sample. Sample readings were made at random.
Protein quantification methods
The BHI algorithm
The Bayesian Hierarchical Algorithm (BHI) is based on a full graphical hierarchical model of the SRM acquisition chain which combines biological and technical parameters (Fig. 2a, Tables 1 and 2).
To estimate all these parameters, two calibrations are required: the use of quality control (QC) samples measured each day for calibration (at protein level) and the use of AQUA peptides for calibration (at peptide level) (see section “Experimental design”). This set of measurements leads to a set of equations that captures the links between the unknown latent variables and parameters to estimate and the known SRM measurement. Estimating a protein concentration requires estimating, at the same time, the technical parameters included in the model.
Table 1 shows all the parameters and variables involved in the description of the SRM analytical chain model. Let θ_{ tech } be the set of latent technical parameters that describes the SRM acquisition chain:
Table 2 shows the hierarchical model that links protein concentration y to the native transition signals I of native peptides and the labeled transition signals I^{∗} of AQUA peptides.
The BHI algorithm has to solve the inverse problem and compute protein concentration y and technical parameters θ_{ tech }. This problem is solved in a Bayesian framework [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Table 3 shows the distribution type used for each variable in this Bayesian framework.
To estimate together the protein concentration and the parameters, we used the native transition signals I with the labeled transitions signals I*. Regarding the labeled signal, the peptide concentration is known but the transition gains and the inverse variance of the noise in the AQUA signal have to be estimated.
Using the distributions defined in Table 3, the full a posteriori distribution p(y, θ_{ tech } I, I^{∗}) can be approximated as follows:
The protein concentration and the parameters are estimated by the expectation of this a posteriori (EAP) distribution. This EAP is defined as follows:
Computing the EAP is achieved with methods based on Markov Chain MonteCarlo (MCMC) procedure and hierarchical Gibbs structure. The algorithm performs sequentially a random sampling of each parameter (y, θ_{ tech }) from the a posteriori distribution and conditionally on the previously sampled parameters, and iterates. The parameters are sampled in the following order: κ, τ, λ, ξ, ϕ^{∗}, γ, γ^{∗}. In the case of a Normal distribution, the sampling is achieved knowing explicitly the mean and the inverse variance of the distribution. In the case of a uniform distribution, the sampling is achieved using one iteration of a MetropolisHastings random walk. After a fixed number of iterations, the algorithm computes the empirical mean of each parameter after a warmup index. This index defines the number of iterations at convergence towards the a posteriori distribution.
Here, we supposed that the digestion yields are known. With BHI, we have introduced a protocol for estimating the digestion yields. We used the control signals measured on the qualitycontrol sample. We assumed that the digestion factors d_{ ip } defined by the number of peptides i present in protein p are known. The digestion yield g_{ ip } is defined by the correction factor to apply to the digestion factor to obtain ratio peptide/protein concentration. Note here that a matrix formulation allows handling nonproteotypic peptides shared by several proteins. The Control signals combine both native transition signals I^{QC} and labeled transition signals I^{∗QC}. According to the abovedescribed Bayesian algorithm, the unknown becomes the digestion yield of each peptide instead of the protein concentration. Here too, estimating the EAP calls for a MCMC algorithm with hierarchical Gibbs structure. This calibration is done once for each calibration batch selecting one quality control measurement. This process may be generalized to the cases where several quality control measurements are available by combining within the EAP computation the information delivered by each measurement.
The BHI algorithm includes an automated selection to initialize the peak position that is based on the set of transitions associated with each peptide. It computes the product of the traces and searches for the position of the maximum value on this product. This way, only the peaks present in all traces are detected.
Algorithm BHI involves a fusion of the information delivered by all traces. This improves the algorithm robustness when the number of traces is large. In fact, generally, processing algorithms for protein quantification are most performant with proteins of ≥3 peptides and peptides with ≥3 transitions [16].
The NLP algorithm
The NLP algorithm (Fig. 2b) is based on the median value, over all transitions, of the logtransformation of ratio native transition peak area/labeled transition peak area. This algorithm is derived from a gold standard algorithm used for oligonucleotide array analysis [17]. The peaks are detected by MultiQuant™ software (AB Sciex, France). These peaks are checked by an operator who decides whether a signal of the labeled internal peptide standard AQUA does not make sense and should be considered as missing or whether a too low or absent signal of the native transition should be assigned value 0.
The NLP algorithm uses, as input data, a normalized and logtransformed quantity t defined by: \( t= Ln\left(1+\frac{I}{I^{\ast }}\right) \) where I represents the area under the peak of a given native transition and I* the area under the peak of the labeled transition.
Elisa
Only protein LFABP was concerned. The concentration of this protein was measured using Vidas HBSAg® protocol, the 2C9G6/5A8H2 antibody pair, and Vidas® analyser (bioMérieux, Marcyl’Étoile, France).
Statistical modeling and analysis
In this article, the performance of each algorithm in SRM and the performance of ELISA were defined as the ability to find the concentrations generated by serial dilution. This ability was estimated by the linear slope and the variance decomposition of the linear model that links the measured to the theoretical protein concentration generated by dilution. The best performance corresponds to the highest part of dilution variance (explained by the dilution) and the lowest part of technical variance (explained by the measurement error and lab procedures).
Only proteins that have a correlation coefficient ≥ 0.7 between theoretical and measured concentration with either NLP or BHI algorithm were selected for the statistical analysis.
Linearity analysis
For each algorithm and each protein, a linear regression model was built to link the protein concentration y with the theoretical protein concentration x. A log2 transformation of the measurements was applied to stabilize the variance. Because of the twofold dilution, the log2 transformation was applied to x and y. With this transformation, the regression line is expected to have a slope close to 1.
Because the reading on a given couple of days may influence the relationship between the measured and the theoretical concentration of each protein, the model included a slope and an intercept for each daycouple; this comes to include an interaction term between protein concentration and daycouple. A fixed effects model was applied and ‘sum to zero contrasts’ were used to obtain estimations of the mean intercept and the mean slope as follows:
i, j, and r correspond respectively to the sample, the daycouple, and the digestioninjection step. Parameters β_{0} and β_{1} are respectively the mean intercept and the mean slope of the regression line between the log2 values of the measured protein concentrations and the log2 values of the theoretical protein concentrations, β_{0j}and β_{1j} being, respectively, the twodayreading effects on the mean intercept and the mean slope. D is for a daycouple.
In parallel, a log2 transformation was applied to ELISA measurements too. These measurements were then analyzed by a linear model (Model 1E) that included the theoretical concentration x, the reading order T, and the interaction between them:
i, j, and r correspond, respectively, to the sample, the reading order, and the replicate.
Variance decomposition
In this work, the data processed by the NLP algorithm included null intensities and missing values (see Additional file 2). These values were excluded after log2 transformation. As their number was unequal between the couple of day readings, the data were considered unbalanced.
To quantify the components of the variance, we calculated adjusted sums of squares by comparing complete Model 1S with each of its nested models. The nested models are shown below: Model 2S included only the effect of the theoretical concentration, Model 3S only the effect of the twoday measurement, and 4S both effects without interaction between them:
Table 4 and Fig. 3 present the components of the analysis of variance. The dilution variance and its interaction with the twoday measurement effect, was calculated as the difference between Model 3S and Model 1S residual sums of squares. The lab procedure variance corresponds to the variance explained by the twoday measurement effect and its interaction with the theoretical concentration was calculated as the difference between Model 2S and Model 1S residual sums of squares. The variance explained by the sole interaction between the theoretical concentration and the twoday measurement was calculated by the difference between Model 4S and Model 1S residual sums of squares.
The residual variance was split into two components [18]: 1) the measurement error due to instrumental and algorithmic errors, which was calculated as the sum of the squares of the differences between the injection replicate values and their mean, and 2) the lack of fit of the model.
For ELISA, the same analysis of variance was applied to Model 1E. Each component of the sum of squares was divided by the total sum of squares and expressed as a percentage. This helped comparing the three methods (ELISA and the two processing algorithms for SRM).
Two Wilcoxon signedrank tests were used on all proteins to test, first the difference between the parts of dilution variance then between the parts of technical variance given by the two processing algorithms. These two tests are not independent and correspond to a single test in case of absence of interaction.
Results
Among all results obtained for all protein reads, the correlation coefficient between the theoretical concentration and the measured protein concentration was ≥0.7 in 9 out of 21 proteins: LFABP, 14.3.3 sigma, Calgi, Def.A6, Villin, Calmo, IFABP, Peroxi5, and S100A14 (Additional files 3 and 4). The correlation coefficient was ≥0.7 with BHI and NLP in proteins 14.3.3 sigma, Calgi, Def.A6, and Villin. This coefficient was ≥0.7 with NLP only in Calmo, IFABP, Peroxi5, and S100A14 and with BHI only in LFABP.
Linearity analysis
Table 5 and Additional file 5 summarize the analysis of variance in each linear model relative to each of the 9 abovecited proteins. Table 5 shows also the mean slopes of these linear models.
For LFABP and Villin, the BHI algorithm gave a higher dilution variance and a lower technical variance than the NLP algorithm. In addition, the mean slope of Model 1S was closer to 1 with the BHI algorithm than with the NLP algorithm.
The BHI algorithm gave various results with the other proteins that have less than three peptides. For 14.3.3 sigma and Calgi, the BHI algorithm gave a higher dilution variance and a lower technical variance than the NLP algorithm. Def.A6 gave similar results with both algorithms. The BHI algorithm gave lower dilution variance and higher technical variance than the NLP algorithm with Calmo, IFABP, Peroxi5, and S100A14. Moreover, 14.3.3 sigma, and Calgi, Calmo, IFABP, Peroxi5, and S100A14, the mean slope of Model 1S was closer to 1 with the NLP than with the BHI algorithm.
But, on all proteins, the dilution variances and the technical variances were not significantly different between the two algorithms (pvalues = 0.35 in both comparisons with Wilcoxon signed ranks test).
With LFABP, ELISA gave higher dilution variance and lower technical variance than SRM with the two algorithms in terms of dilution variance and technical variance. Besides, the mean slope of Model 1E was closer to 1 than the mean slopes obtained with Model 1S with either the BHI or the NLP algorithm.
Technical variance components
The part of the measurement error was the highest part of the technical variance with the BHI with LFABP, 14.3.3 sigma, Calgi, Def.A6, and Villin and with the NLP with Calmo, IFABP, Peroxi5, and S100A14. The other components of the technical variance (i.e., the twoday measurement and the interaction between this measurement and the theoretical concentration) included a variability of the intercept and a variability of the slope of the regression lines relative to the 4 daycouples.
Figures 4 and 5 show the relationships between the theoretical and the measured protein concentrations on the log2log2 scale for the 9 proteins with algorithms NLP and BHI, respectively. Figure 6 shows the relationship between the theoretical and the measured LFABP concentration with ELISA. In these figures, for LFABP, 14.3.3 sigma, Calgi, Def.A6, and Villin, the four regression lines relative to the 4 daycouples were more grouped with BHI than with NLP. This means that the part of the variance due to the twoday measurement process and the interaction between this process and the theoretical concentration is smaller with BHI than with NLP (also shown in Table 5). For Def.A6, this part of the variance was very low with both algorithms; thus, the part due to the measurement error was the highest part of the technical variance.
In Figs. 4 and 5, for Calmo, IFABP, Peroxi5, and S100A14, the four regression lines relative to the 4 daycouples were more grouped with NLP than with BHI. This means that the part of the variance due to the twoday measurement process and the interaction between this process and the theoretical concentration is smaller with NLP than with BHI.
Discussion
The present article proposes an extension of variance component analysis via adjusted sums of squares by estimating correctly the various sources of variability on unbalanced data. This analysis allows estimating separately the dilution variability and the technical variability. In an application to protein concentration estimation by two processing algorithms (NLP and BHI), this extension allowed algorithm performance quantification and comparison. The results showed that the performance of each algorithm as reflected by the dilution and the technical variance depended on the protein and that, on all proteins, there were no significant difference between the two algorithms.
Other statistical modeling frameworks were proposed for protein quantification in SRM experiments. SRMstats [19] uses a linear mixedeffects model to compare distinct groups (or specific subjects from these groups). Its primary output is a list of proteins that are differentially abundant across settings and the dependent variables are the logintensities of the transitions. Here, a simple linear model was used to find the theoretical protein concentrations generated by serial dilution, the primary outputs are the components of the variance (essentially, the variance component explained by the serial dilution) and the dependent variable is the protein concentration estimated by the quantification algorithm on the basis of the ratio of native to labeled transitions (see parts “The BHI algorithm” and “The NLP algorithm”).
In the publication of Xia et al. [6], the reproducibility of the SRM experiment was assessed by decomposing the variance into parts attributable to different factors using mixed effects models. The sequential ANOVA was used to quantify the variance components of the fixed effects. However, when the data are unbalanced, the sequential ANOVA cannot correctly estimate the different parts of the variance: with balanced data, one factor can be held constant whereas the other is allowed to vary independently. This desirable property of orthogonality is usually lost with unbalanced data which generated correlations between factors. With such data, the use of adjusted sums of squares (Type II and Type III sum of squares in some statistical analysis programs) [20,21,22,23] is then an appropriate alternative to the sequential sums of squares. With Type II, each effect is adjusted on all other terms except their interactions; thus one limitation is that this approach is not applicable in the presence of interactions. With Type III, each effect is adjusted on all other terms including their interactions but one major criticism is that some nested models used for estimating the sums of squares are unrealistic [24] because these models that include interaction terms between effects do not allow for all effects (For example in a threeway Table (A, B and C), the model that includes interaction A*B*C does not include all effects A, B, C). Here, we propose an approach that responds to this criticism.
In SRM protein quantification, the BHI algorithm revealed a higher part of the whole dilution variance and a lower part of the whole technical variance vs. NLP with LFABP and Villin, the only two proteins that have three peptides. This is one limitation of the present study because assessing the performance of the BHI algorithm requires other proteins with three peptides or proteins with more than three peptides.
In comparing the two algorithms using proteins with less than three peptides, the difference in measurement results may be explained by differences in the proprieties of these algorithms. Firstly, the NLP algorithm is supervised and assesses the quality of both the native and the labeled transition before estimating their ratio (spectrum visualization by an operator) whereas the BHI algorithm is automatic and gives directly an estimation of this ratio, including a weighting of each transition according to the estimated level of noise. When the signals of the labeled transition are not detectable, the measures do not make sense and are considered missing for the NLP algorithm but give incorrect values with the BHI algorithm. For Peroxi5 and S100A14 proteins, 27% and 36% of the values of the labeled transitions measured by the NLP algorithm (see Additional file 2) were discarded by the operator but read by the BHI algorithm. This can be the reason for which these proteins had bad results with the BHI algorithm. Thus, it would be interesting to compare the two algorithms only on spikes selected by the operator.
The BHI algorithm (but not the NLP) allows for the variability stemming from the SRM preanalytic step (precisely, the digestion step) by using QC samples to estimate the daily digestion yield. This may reduce the variability due to the twoday measurement process, but not systematically; in the presence of endogenous proteins with fragments, the ratio of transitions (native to labeled transition) may be altered, which leads to incorrect estimations of the digestion yields. Other strategies to monitor the digestion step should then be used to estimate correctly the digestion yield, such as the addition of Protein Standard Absolute Quantification, PSAQ [25]. Spiking isotopically labelled proteins has the advantage that incomplete or unspecific digestion does not corrupt the results; this corruption may occur when labelled AQUA internal standards are used.
In each algorithm, when a linear relationship was not clearly observed (< 0.70 correlation coefficient between the theoretical concentration and the measured protein concentration), it was assumed that the protein concentration was below the analytical limit of detection. Actually, the SRM sensitivity depends not only on the protein amount but also on the tryptic peptide sequence and the matrix effect [26].
Conclusion
After the generic experimental design imagined by Adonna et al. [7], an extension of this design and a variance decomposition via adjusted sums of squares in case of unbalanced data are now available to evaluate the technical variability of protein concentration by SRM measurements and ensure an initial comparison of protein quantification algorithms.
Abbreviations
 AQUA:

Absolute QUAntification
 BHI:

Bayesian hierarchical algorithm
 Calgi:

Calgizzarin or S100 A11
 Calmo:

Calmodulin
 Calret:

Calreticulin
 Def.A6:

Defensin α6
 ELISA:

EnzymeLinked immunosorbent assay
 IFABP:

Intestinalfatty acid binding protein
 LFABP:

Liverfatty acid binding protein
 MRM:

Multiple reaction monitoring
 MS:

Mass spectrometry
 NLP:

Nonlinear processing
 PDI:

Protein disulfideisomerase
 Peroxi5:

Peroxiredoxin5
 PSAQ:

Protein standard absolute quantification
 QC:

Quality controls
 S100A14:

S100 calciumbinding protein A14
 SRM:

Selected reaction monitoring
 TPI:

Triophosphate isomerase
References
 1.
Rifai N, Gillette MA, Carr SA. Protein biomarker discovery and validation: the long and uncertain path to clinical utility. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:971–83.
 2.
Lemoine J, Fortin T, Salvador A, Jaffuel A, Charrier JP, ChoquetKastylevsky G. The current status of clinical proteomics and the use of MRM and MRM^{3} for biomarker validation. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2012;12:333–42.
 3.
Brun V, Masselon C, Garin J, Dupuis A. Isotope dilution strategies for absolute quantitative proteomics. J Proteome. 2009;72:740–9.
 4.
EckelPassow JE, Oberg AL, Therneau TM, Bergen HR 3rd. An insight into highresolution massspectrometry data. Biostatistics. 2009;10:481–500.
 5.
Lange V, Picotti P, Domon B, Aebersold R. Selected reaction monitoring for quantitative proteomics: a tutorial. Mol Syst Biol. 2008;4:222.
 6.
Xia JQ, Sedransk N, Feng X. Variance component analysis of a multisite study for the reproducibility of multiple reaction monitoring measurements of peptides in human plasma. PLoS One. 2011;6:e14590.
 7.
Addona TA, Abbatiello SE, Schilling B, Skates SJ, Mani DR, Bunk DM, et al. Multisite assessment of the precision and reproducibility of multiple reaction monitoringbased measurements of proteins in plasma. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27:633–41.
 8.
Grangeat P, Szacherski P, Gerfault L, Giovannelli JF. Bayesian hierarchical reconstruction of protein profiles including a digestion model. 59th ASMS conference on mass spectrometry, Denver, Colorado, USA 2011.
 9.
Gerfault L, Szacherski P, Giovannelli JF, Charrier JP, Mahé P, Grangeat P. A hierarchical SRM acquisition chain model for improved protein quantification in serum samples. San Diego: RECOMBCP; 2012.
 10.
Szacherski P., Reconstruction de profils protéiques pour la recherche de biomarqueurs, Ph. D. thesis, Université de Bordeaux 1, 2012. http://www.theses.fr/2012BOR14740/document.
 11.
Szacherski P, Gerfault L, Giovannelli JF, Giremus A, Mahé P, Fortin T, et al. MRM protein quantification and serum sample classification, 61^{st} ASMS conference on mass spectrometry and allied topics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 2013.
 12.
Grangeat P, Giovannelli JF, Roy P, Picaud V, Truntzer C, Lemoine J, et al. Convergence entre l’analyse biostatistique et les méthodes d’inversion hiérarchique bayésienne pour la recherche et la validation de biomarqueurs par spectrométrie de masse. Brest: XXIVème Colloque GRETSI; 2013.
 13.
Gerfault L, Szacherski P, Giovannelli JF, Giremus A, Mahé P, Fortin T, et al. Assessing MRM protein quantification and serum sample classification performances of a Bayesian Hierarchical Inversion method on a colorectal cancer cohort. SaintMalo: EuPA 2013 Scientific Meeting; 2013.
 14.
Gerfault L, Klich A, Mercier C, Roy P, Giovannelli JF, Giremus A, et al. Statistical analysis of Bayesian hierarchical inversion for MRM protein quantification and QDA serum sample classification. 62^{nd} ASMS conference on mass spectrometry and allied topics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA 2014.
 15.
Szacherski P, Giovannelli JF, Gerfault L, Mahé P, Charrier P, Giremus A, et al. Classification of proteomic MS data as Bayesian solution of an inverse problem. Access, IEEE. 2014;2:1248–62.
 16.
Grossmann J, Roschitzki B, Panse C, Fortes C, BarkowOesterreicher S, Rutishauser D, et al. Implementation and evaluation of relative and absolute quantification in shotgun proteomics with labelfree methods. J Proteome. 2010;73:1740–6.
 17.
Irizarry RA, Hobbs B, Collin F, BeazerBarclay YD, Antonellis KJ, Scherf U, et al. Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics. 2003;4:249–64.
 18.
Weisberg S. Applied linear regression. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2005. Chapter 5
 19.
Chang CY, Picotti P, Hüttenhain R, HeinzelmannSchwarz V, Jovanovic M, Aebersold R, et al. Protein significance analysis in selected reaction monitoring (SRM) measurements. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2012;11:M111.014662.
 20.
Hector A, Von Felten S, Schmid B. Analysis of variance with unbalanced data: an update for ecology and evolution. J Anim Ecol. 2010;79:308–16.
 21.
Cramer EM, Appelbaum MI. Nonorthogonal. Analysis of variance once again. Psychol Bull. 1980;87:51–7.
 22.
Langsrud Ø. ANOVA for unbalanced data: use type II instead of type III sums of squares. Stat Comput. 2003;13:163–7.
 23.
Nelder JA, Lane PW. The computer analysis of factorial experiments: in memoriam  frank yates. Am Stat. 1995;49:382–5.
 24.
Nelder J. The statistics of linear models: back to basics. Stat Comput. 1994;4:221–34.
 25.
Beynon RJ, Doherty MK, Pratt JM, Gaskell SJ. Multiplexed absolute quantification in proteomics using artificial QCAT proteins of concatenated signature peptides. Nat Methods. 2005;2:587–9.
 26.
Dupin M, Fortin T, LarueTriolet A, Surault I, Beaulieu C, GouelChéron A, et al. Impact of serum and plasma matrices on the titration of human inflammatory biomarkers using analytically validated SRM assays. J Proteome Res. 2016;15:2366–78.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Caroline Truntzer and Patrick Ducoroy (CLIPP, Dijon) for their fruitful participation to the discussions about the project. They also thank Jean Iwaz (Hospices Civils de Lyon, France) for many helpful comments, suggestions, and revisions of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was funded by the Agence Nationale pour la Recherche (ANR Grant 2010 BLAN 0313). The ANR did not intervene in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
The data are available on request from author JPC.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
AK: experimental design, statistical analysis, and manuscript drafting. CM: experimental design and statistical analysis plan. LG: signal processing and development of BHI software. PG: signal processing and development of BHI software coordination, supervision of BHIPRO project, and manuscript revision. CB: biochemical experiments. EDC: biochemical experiments. TF: signal processing of spectra. PM: signal processing of spectra and discussions about the experimental design. JFG: development of signal processing for spectra and manuscript revision. JPC: discussions about experimental design and manuscript revision. AG: discussions about experimental design. DMB: discussions about experimental design and statistical methods. PR: supervision of data analysis and result interpretation, manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Amna Klich.
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional file
Additional file 1:
The full details for sample preparation and SRM analysis. (DOCX 16 kb)
Additional file 2:
Number of transitions and peptides per protein and the percent of missing and zero values among protein concentration measurements. (DOCX 18 kb)
Additional file 3:
Relationship between theoretical and BHIquantified protein concentrations. (TIFF 2929 kb)
Additional file 4:
Relationship between theoretical and NLPquantified protein concentrations. (TIFF 2929 kb)
Additional file 5:
Scatter plot showing the parts of dilution variance, technical variance, and lack of fit with Model 1S. (TIFF 1318 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
About this article
Cite this article
Klich, A., Mercier, C., Gerfault, L. et al. Variance component analysis to assess protein quantification in biomarker validation: application to selected reaction monitoringmass spectrometry. BMC Bioinformatics 19, 73 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1285901820758
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Keywords
 Mass spectrometry
 SRM
 Validation biomarkers
 Technical variability
 Experimental design
 Variance component analysis