Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, CEA, INSERM, ProFI, EDyP, Grenoble, France.
Proteomics. 2023 Sep;23(18):e2200406. doi: 10.1002/pmic.202200406. Epub 2023 Jun 25.
In discovery proteomics, as well as many other "omic" approaches, the possibility to test for the differential abundance of hundreds (or of thousands) of features simultaneously is appealing, despite requiring specific statistical safeguards, among which controlling for the false discovery rate (FDR) has become standard. Moreover, when more than two biological conditions or group treatments are considered, it has become customary to rely on the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) framework, where a first global differential abundance landscape provided by an omnibus test can be subsequently refined using various post-hoc tests (PHTs). However, the interactions between the FDR control procedures and the PHTs are complex, because both correspond to different types of multiple test corrections (MTCs). This article surveys various ways to orchestrate them in a data processing workflow and discusses their pros and cons.
在发现蛋白质组学中,以及许多其他“组学”方法中,尽管需要特定的统计保障措施,例如控制假发现率 (FDR) 已经成为标准,但同时测试数百(或数千)个特征的差异丰度的可能性仍然很有吸引力。此外,当考虑超过两种生物条件或组处理时,通常依靠单向方差分析 (ANOVA) 框架,其中由全面测试提供的第一个全局差异丰度景观可以使用各种事后检验 (PHT) 进行进一步细化。然而,FDR 控制程序和 PHT 之间的相互作用非常复杂,因为它们都对应于不同类型的多重检验校正 (MTC)。本文调查了在数据处理工作流程中协调它们的各种方法,并讨论了它们的优缺点。