In:
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 15, No. 12 ( 2020-12-14), p. e0243487-
Abstract:
Targeted proteomics utilizing antibody-based proximity extension assays provides sensitive and highly specific quantifications of plasma protein levels. Multivariate analysis of this data is hampered by frequent missing values (random or left censored), calling for imputation approaches. While appropriate missing-value imputation methods exist, benchmarks of their performance in targeted proteomics data are lacking. Here, we assessed the performance of two methods for imputation of values missing completely at random, the previously top-benchmarked ‘missForest’ and the recently published ‘GSimp’ method. Evaluation was accomplished by comparing imputed with remeasured relative concentrations of 91 inflammation related circulating proteins in 86 samples from a cohort of 645 patients with venous thromboembolism. The median Pearson correlation between imputed and remeasured protein expression values was 69.0% for missForest and 71.6% for GSimp (p = 5.8e-4). Imputation with missForest resulted in stronger reduction of variance compared to GSimp (median relative variance of 25.3% vs. 68.6%, p = 2.4e-16) and undesired larger bias in downstream analyses. Irrespective of the imputation method used, the 91 imputed proteins revealed large variations in imputation accuracy, driven by differences in signal to noise ratio and information overlap between proteins. In summary, GSimp outperformed missForest, while both methods show good overall imputation accuracy with large variations between proteins.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1932-6203
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.g003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.g004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.g005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.g006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s008
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s009
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s010
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s011
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s012
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s013
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s014
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s015
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s016
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s017
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0243487.s018
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2020
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2267670-3
Permalink