Close
Help
Need Help?





JOURNAL

Cancer Informatics

1,241,423 Journal Article Views | Journal Analytics

The Need for Review and Understanding of SELDI/MALDI Mass Spectroscopy Data Prior to Analysis

Submit a Paper



Publication Date: 19 Feb 2007

Journal: Cancer Informatics

Citation: Cancer Informatics 2005:1 86-97

William E. Grizzle,a O. John Semmes,b William Bigbee,c Liu Zhu,a Gunjan Malik,b Denise K Oelschlager,a Barkha Manne,a Upender Mannea

University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL;a Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA,b University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.c

Abstract: Multiple studies have reported that surface enhanced laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectroscopy (SELDITOF-MS) is useful in the early detection of disease based on the analysis of bodily fluids. Use of any multiplex mass spectroscopy based approach as in the analysis of bodily fluids to detect disease must be analyzed with great care due to the susceptibility of multiplex and mass spectroscopy methods to biases introduced via experimental design, patient samples, and/or methodology. Specific biases include those related to experimental design, patients, samples, protein chips, chip reader and spectral analysis. Contributions to biases based on patients include demographics (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, sex), homeostasis (e.g., fasting, medications, stress, time of sampling), and site of analysis (hospital, clinic, other). Biases in samples include conditions of sampling (type of sample container, time of processing, time to storage), conditions of storage, (time and temperature of storage), and prior sample manipulation (freeze thaw cycles). Also, there are many potential biases in methodology which can be avoided by careful experimental design including ensuring that cases and controls are analyzed randomly. All the above forms of biases affect any system based on analyzing multiple analytes and especially all mass spectroscopy based methods, not just SELDI-TOF-MS. Also, all current mass spectroscopy systems have relatively low sensitivity compared with immunoassays (e.g., ELISA). There are several problems which may be unique to the SELDI-TOF-MS system marketed by Ciphergen®. Of these, the most important is a relatively low resolution (±0.2%) of the bundled mass spectrometer which may cause problems with analysis of data. Foremost, this low resolution results in difficulties in determining what constitutes a “peak” if a peak matching approach is used in analysis. Also, once peaks are selected, the peaks may represent multiple proteins. In addition, because peaks may vary slightly in location due to instrumental drift, long term identification of the same peaks may prove to be a challenge. Finally, the Ciphergen® system has some “noise” of the baseline which results from the accumulation of charge in the detector system. Thus, we must be very aware of the factors that may affect the use of proteomics in the early detection of disease, in determining aggressive subsets of cancers, in risk assessment and in monitoring the effectiveness of novel therapies.


Downloads

PDF  (1.48 MB PDF FORMAT)

RIS citation   (ENDNOTE, REFERENCE MANAGER, PROCITE, REFWORKS)

BibTex citation   (BIBDESK, LATEX)

XML






What Your Colleagues Say About Cancer Informatics
testimonial_image
Compared with other journals we considered for publishing, Cancer Informatics provided extremely rapid but quality turnaround from draft submission to a flawlessly typeset final publication.  Moreover, sharing the article is now as easy as sharing a link with no subscriptions required, and additional code and data files are equally accessible, supporting reproducible research.  Because it has published many of our references we feel confident that our target readership must follow the journal.  This is further ...
Dr Seppo Karrila (Prince of Songkla University, Thailand)
More Testimonials

Quick Links




Follow Us We make it easy to find new research papers.




SUBJECT HUBS
Author Survey Results
author_survey_results
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.
See Our Results