<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
Western blot data are widely used in quantitative applications such as statistical testing and mathematical modelling. To ensure accurate quantitation and comparability between experiments, Western blot replicates must be normalised, but it is unclear how the available methods affect statistical properties of the data. Here we evaluate three commonly used normalisation strategies: (i) by fixed normalisation point or control; (ii) by sum of all data points in a replicate; and (iii) by optimal alignment of the replicates. We consider how these different strategies affect the coefficient of variation (CV) and the results of hypothesis testing with the normalised data. Normalisation by fixed point tends to increase the mean CV of normalised data in a manner that naturally depends on the choice of the normalisation point. Thus, in the context of hypothesis testing, normalisation by fixed point reduces false positives and increases false negatives. Analysis of published experimental data shows that choosing normalisation points with low quantified intensities results in a high normalised data CV and should thus be avoided. Normalisation by sum or by optimal alignment redistributes the raw data uncertainty in a mean-dependent manner, reducing the CV of high intensity points and increasing the CV of low intensity points. This causes the effect of normalisations by sum or optimal alignment on hypothesis testing to depend on the mean of the data tested; for high intensity points, false positives are increased and false negatives are decreased, while for low intensity points, false positives are decreased and false negatives are increased. These results will aid users of Western blotting to choose a suitable normalisation strategy and also understand the implications of this normalisation for subsequent hypothesis testing.
330, Science, Blotting, Western, Normalisation, Western blot, Enhanced chemiluminescence, Linearity, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Variability, ECL, Systems Biology, Q, R, Fluorescent secondary antibody, T-test, Signal-to-noise, Coefficient of Variation, Hypothesis testing, Research Design, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Quantitative western blotting, MCF-7 Cells, Linear range, Medicine, Electrophoresis, Polyacrylamide Gel, Normalisation point, Research Article
330, Science, Blotting, Western, Normalisation, Western blot, Enhanced chemiluminescence, Linearity, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Variability, ECL, Systems Biology, Q, R, Fluorescent secondary antibody, T-test, Signal-to-noise, Coefficient of Variation, Hypothesis testing, Research Design, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Quantitative western blotting, MCF-7 Cells, Linear range, Medicine, Electrophoresis, Polyacrylamide Gel, Normalisation point, Research Article
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 200 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |