IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0149575.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Method and On-Line Tool for Maximum Likelihood Calibration of Immunoblots and Other Measurements That Are Quantified in Batches

Author

Listed:
  • Steven S Andrews
  • Suzannah Rutherford

Abstract

Experimental measurements require calibration to transform measured signals into physically meaningful values. The conventional approach has two steps: the experimenter deduces a conversion function using measurements on standards and then calibrates (or normalizes) measurements on unknown samples with this function. The deduction of the conversion function from only the standard measurements causes the results to be quite sensitive to experimental noise. It also implies that any data collected without reliable standards must be discarded. Here we show that a “1-step calibration method” reduces these problems for the common situation in which samples are measured in batches, where a batch could be an immunoblot (Western blot), an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), a sequence of spectra, or a microarray, provided that some sample measurements are replicated across multiple batches. The 1-step method computes all calibration results iteratively from all measurements. It returns the most probable values for the sample compositions under the assumptions of a statistical model, making them the maximum likelihood predictors. It is less sensitive to measurement error on standards and enables use of some batches that do not include standards. In direct comparison of both real and simulated immunoblot data, the 1-step method consistently exhibited smaller errors than the conventional “2-step” method. These results suggest that the 1-step method is likely to be most useful for cases where experimenters want to analyze existing data that are missing some standard measurements and where experimenters want to extract the best results possible from their data. Open source software for both methods is available for download or on-line use.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven S Andrews & Suzannah Rutherford, 2016. "A Method and On-Line Tool for Maximum Likelihood Calibration of Immunoblots and Other Measurements That Are Quantified in Batches," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0149575
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149575
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149575&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0149575?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Feng Feng & Morgan P Thompson & Beena E Thomas & Elizabeth R Duffy & Jiyoun Kim & Shinichiro Kurosawa & Joseph Y Tashjian & Yibing Wei & Chris Andry & D J Stearns-Kurosawa, 2019. "A computational solution to improve biomarker reproducibility during long-term projects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0149575. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.