May 3, 2012 at 3:14 pm #1431
To understand an analysis, perform comparisons between datasets, or derive statistics from their aggregation, it is crucial to understand both the biological and the methodological context of the results. Inadequate description can allow inappropriate experimental design and random or systematic errors to go undetected. Conversely, confidence in data and data analysis can be increased by, for example, reporting the performance of appropriate test samples or using power analyses to support the particular study design.
Proteomics data should therefore ideally be accompanied by contextualizing ‘metadata’, making explicit both where samples came from and how analyses were performed. To that end, the HUPO Proteomics Standards Initiative (http://www.psidev.info) has developed guidance documents specifying the data and metadata that should be collected from various proteomics workflows, known collectively as the “minimum information about a proteomics experiment” (MIAPE) guidelines.
The contextualization of data is sorely needed in the imaging MS field. Within COST Action BM1104 a discussion has begun concerning the minimum information that is necessary to adequately describe an imaging MS experiment. Following a lengthy discussion in Munich (Axel Walch, Benjamin Balluf, Andreas Roempp, Liam McDonnell) we now have a working document concerning which items should be controlled in an imaging MS MIAPE. The attached Powerpoint file describes the fields considered to be the minimum information about an imaging MS experiment in order to correctly contextualize the data (while retaining broad applicability and not making the associated workload excessive).
We have already received a number of suggested modifications – where I (personally) agree I have inserted them into the document and highlighted them as green. Where I have concerns I have included the suggestions in the document but highlighted them as red. The purpose of this forum topic is to reach a consensus of which information is the minimum that should be provided. If you have any concerns about the current MIAPE please provide working suggestions as to how we may improve the MIAPE, (while retaining broad applicability and not making the associated workload excessive). FYI the final MIAPE generator software will use controlled vocabulary in order to automatically assess MIAPE compliance – where possible please provide suggestions that can be address using simple multiple-choice answers.
With best regards
1) Taylor et al. Nature Biotechnology 25, 887 – 893 (2007)Attachments:June 18, 2012 at 1:32 pm #1441
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.