Improving rigor and reproducibility in western blot experiments with the blotRig analysis.
Analytical chemistry
Antibodies
Biostatistics
Computational biology
Computational chemistry
Western blot
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 09 2024
17 09 2024
Historique:
received:
19
12
2023
accepted:
13
08
2024
medline:
17
9
2024
pubmed:
17
9
2024
entrez:
16
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Western blot is a popular biomolecular analysis method for measuring the relative quantities of independent proteins in complex biological samples. However, variability in quantitative western blot data analysis poses a challenge in designing reproducible experiments. The lack of rigorous quantitative approaches in current western blot statistical methodology may result in irreproducible inferences. Here we describe best practices for the design and analysis of western blot experiments, with examples and demonstrations of how different analytical approaches can lead to widely varying outcomes. To facilitate best practices, we have developed the blotRig tool for designing and analyzing western blot experiments to improve their rigor and reproducibility. The blotRig application includes functions for counterbalancing experimental design by lane position, batch management across gels, and analytics with covariates and random effects.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39284854
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-70096-0
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-70096-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21644Subventions
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant
ID : R01NS088475
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : NIH NINDS
ID : R01NS122888
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA)
ID : I01RX002245
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Organisme : US Veterans Affairs (VA
ID : I50BX005878
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Lowry, O., Rosebrough, N., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 193, 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(19)52451-6 (1951).
pubmed: 14907713
Aldridge, G. M., Podrebarac, D. M., Greenough, W. T. & Weiler, I. J. The use of total protein stains as loading controls: An alternative to high-abundance single protein controls in semi-quantitative immunoblotting. J. Neurosci. Methods 172, 250–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2008.05.00 (2008).
pubmed: 18571732
pmcid: 2567873
McDonough, A. A., Veiras, L. C., Minas, J. N. & Ralph, D. L. Considerations when quantitating protein abundance by immunoblot. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 308, C426-433. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00400.2014 (2015).
pubmed: 25540176
Towbin, H., Staehelin, T. & Gordon, J. Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from polyacrylamide gels to nitrocellulose sheets: Procedure and some applications. PNAS 76, 4350–4354. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.76.9.4350 (1979).
pubmed: 388439
pmcid: 411572
Burnette, W. N. “Western blotting”: Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gels to unmodified nitrocellulose and radiographic detection with antibody and radioiodinated protein A. Anal. Biochem. 112, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(81)90281-5 (1981).
pubmed: 6266278
Mahmood, T. & Yang, P.-C. Western blot: Technique, theory, and trouble shooting. N. Am. J. Med. Sci. 4, 429–434. https://doi.org/10.4103/1947-2714.100998 (2012).
pubmed: 23050259
pmcid: 3456489
Alegria-Schaffer, A., Lodge, A. & Vattem, K. Performing and optimizing Western blots with an emphasis on chemiluminescent detection. Methods Enzymol. 463, 573–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(09)63033-0 (2009).
pubmed: 19892193
Khoury, M. K., Parker, I. & Aswad, D. W. Acquisition of chemiluminescent signals from immunoblots with a digital SLR camera. Anal. Biochem. 397, 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2009.09.041 (2010).
pubmed: 19788886
Zellner, M. et al. Fluorescence-based western blotting for quantitation of protein biomarkers in clinical samples. Electrophoresis 29, 3621–3627. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.200700935 (2008).
pubmed: 18803224
Gingrich, J. C., Davis, D. R. & Nguyen, Q. Multiplex detection and quantitation of proteins on western blots using fluorescent probes. Biotechniques 29, 636–642. https://doi.org/10.2144/00293pf02 (2000).
pubmed: 10997278
Janes, K. A. An analysis of critical factors for quantitative immunoblotting. Sci. Signal 8, rs2. https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.2005966 (2015).
pubmed: 25852189
pmcid: 4401487
Mollica, J. P., Oakhill, J. S., Lamb, G. D. & Murphy, R. M. Are genuine changes in protein expression being overlooked? Reassessing western blotting. Anal. Biochem. 386, 270–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2008.12.029 (2009).
pubmed: 19161968
Pillai-Kastoori, L., Schutz-Geschwender, A. R. & Harford, J. A. A systematic approach to quantitative western blot analysis. Anal. Biochem. 593, 113608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2020.113608 (2020).
pubmed: 32007473
Aydin, S. A short history, principles, and types of ELISA, and our laboratory experience with peptide/protein analyses using ELISA. Peptides 72, 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2015.04.012 (2015).
pubmed: 25908411
Seisenberger, C. et al. Questioning coverage values determined by 2D western blots: A critical study on the characterization of anti-HCP ELISA reagents. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 118, 1116–1126. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27635 (2021).
pubmed: 33241851
Edwards, V. M. & Mosley, J. W. Reproducibility in quality control of protein (western) immunoblot assay for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 91, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/91.1.75 (1989).
pubmed: 2910017
Matschke, J. et al. Neuropathology of patients with COVID-19 in Germany: A post-mortem case series. Lancet Neurol. 19, 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30308-2 (2020).
pubmed: 33031735
pmcid: 7535629
Murphy, R. M. & Lamb, G. D. Important considerations for protein analyses using antibody based techniques: Down-sizing western blotting up-sizes outcomes. J. Physiol. 591, 5823–5831. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2013.263251 (2013).
pubmed: 24127618
pmcid: 3872754
Butler, T. A. J., Paul, J. W., Chan, E.-C., Smith, R. & Tolosa, J. M. Misleading westerns: Common quantification mistakes in western blot densitometry and proposed corrective measures. Biomed. Res. Int. 2019, 5214821. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5214821 (2019).
pubmed: 30800670
pmcid: 6360618
Button, K. S. et al. Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475 (2013).
pubmed: 23571845
Landis, S. C. et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490, 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11556 (2012).
pubmed: 23060188
pmcid: 3511845
Shields, S. D., Eckert, W. A. & Basbaum, A. I. Spared nerve injury model of neuropathic pain in the mouse: A behavioral and anatomic analysis. J. Pain 4, 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1067/s1526-5900(03)00781-8 (2003).
pubmed: 14622667
Decosterd, I. & Woolf, C. Spared nerve injury: An animal model of persistent peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain 87, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00276-1 (2000).
pubmed: 10924808
Richner, M., Jager, S. B., Siupka, P. & Vaegter, C. B. Hydraulic extrusion of the spinal cord and isolation of dorsal root ganglia in rodents. J. Vis. Exp. https://doi.org/10.3791/55226 (2017).
pubmed: 28190031
pmcid: 5352284
Ferguson, A. R. et al. Cell death after spinal cord injury is exacerbated by rapid TNFα-induced trafficking of GluR2-lacking AMPARS to the plasma membrane. J Neurosci 28, 11391–11400. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3708-08.2008 (2008).
pubmed: 18971481
pmcid: 2598739
Ferguson, A. R., Huie, J. R., Crown, E. D. & Grau, J. W. Central nociceptive sensitization vs. spinal cord training: Opposing forms of plasticity that dictate function after complete spinal cord injury. Front. Physiol. 3, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00396 (2012).
Taylor, S. C., Berkelman, T., Yadav, G. & Hammond, M. A defined methodology for reliable quantification of western blot data. Mol. Biotechnol. 55, 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-013-9672-6 (2013).
pubmed: 23709336
pmcid: 3840294
Bakkenist, C. J. et al. A quasi-quantitative dual multiplexed immunoblot method to simultaneously analyze ATM and H2AX phosphorylation in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Oncoscience 2, 542–554. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncoscience.162 (2015).
pubmed: 26097887
pmcid: 4468340
Wang, Y. V. et al. Quantitative analyses reveal the importance of regulated Hdmx degradation for p53 activation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 12365–12370. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701497104 (2007).
pubmed: 17640893
pmcid: 1941475
Bass, J. et al. An overview of technical considerations for western blotting applications to physiological research. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 27, 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12702 (2017).
pubmed: 27263489
Lazzeroni, L. C. & Ray, A. The cost of large numbers of hypothesis tests on power, effect size and sample size. Mol. Psychiatry 17, 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2010.117 (2012).
pubmed: 21060308
Huie, J. R. et al. AMPA receptor phosphorylation and synaptic colocalization on motor neurons drive maladaptive plasticity below complete spinal cord injury. eNeuro https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0091-15.2015 (2015).
pubmed: 26668821
pmcid: 4677690
Stück, E. D. et al. Tumor necrosis factor alpha mediates GABAA receptor trafficking to the plasma membrane of spinal cord neurons in vivo. Neural Plast https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/261345 (2012).
pubmed: 22530155
pmcid: 3317039
Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. Points of significance: Power and sample size. Nat. Method. 10, 1139–1140. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2738 (2013).
R Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2021).
Green, P. & MacLeod C. J. “simr: An R package for power analysis of generalised linear mixed models by simulation.” Meth. Ecol. Evolut. 7(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504 , https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=simr (2016).
Attali, D. shinyjs: Easily Improve the User Experience of Your Shiny Apps in Seconds. R package version 2.1.0, https://deanattali.com/shinyjs/ (2022).
Chang, W. et al. shiny: Web Application Framework for R. R package version 1.9.1.9000, https://github.com/rstudio/shiny , https://shiny.posit.co/ (2024).
Chang, W. shinythemes: Themes for Shiny. R package version 1.2.0, https://github.com/rstudio/shinythemes (2024).
de Vries, A., Schloerke, B., Russell, K. sortable: Drag-and-Drop in ‘shiny’ Apps with ‘SortableJS’. R package version 0.5.0, https://github.com/rstudio/sortable (2024).
Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. JOSS 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 (2019).
Xie, Y., Cheng, J., Tan, X. DT: A Wrapper of the JavaScript Library ‘DataTables’. R package version 0.33.1, dt. https://github.com/rstudio/ (2024).
Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. Points of significance: Analysis of variance and blocking. Nat Methods 11, 699–700. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3005 (2014).
pubmed: 25110779
Heidebrecht, F., Heidebrecht, A., Schulz, I., Behrens, S.-E. & Bader, A. Improved semiquantitative western blot technique with increased quantification range. J. Immunol. Methods 345, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jim.2009.03.018 (2009).
pubmed: 19351538
Huang, Y.-T. et al. Robust comparison of protein levels across tissues and throughout development using standardized quantitative western blotting. J. Vis. Exp. https://doi.org/10.3791/59438 (2019).
pubmed: 31904744
Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. Points of view: Designing comparative experiments. Nat. Methods 11, 597–598. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2974 (2014).
pubmed: 25019145
Thacker, J. S., Yeung, D. H., Staines, W. R. & Mielke, J. G. Total protein or high-abundance protein: Which offers the best loading control for western blotting?. Anal. Biochem. 496, 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2015.11.022 (2016).
pubmed: 26706797
Zeng, L. et al. Direct blue 71 staining as a destaining-free alternative loading control method for western blotting. Electrophoresis 34, 2234–2239. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.201300140 (2013).
pubmed: 23712695
Jaeger, T. F. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. J. Mem. Lang. 59, 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 (2008).
pubmed: 19884961
pmcid: 2613284
Mefford, J. & Witte, J. S. The covariate’s dilemma. PLoS Genet. 8, e1003096. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003096 (2012).
pubmed: 23162385
pmcid: 3497901
Schneider, B. A., Avivi-Reich, M. & Mozuraitis, M. A cautionary note on the use of the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in classification designs with and without within-subject factors. Front. Psychol. 6, 474. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00474 (2015).
pubmed: 25954230
pmcid: 4404726
Nieuwenhuis, S., Forstmann, B. U. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: A problem of significance. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 1105–1107. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2886 (2011).
pubmed: 21878926
Freeberg, T. M. & Lucas, J. R. Pseudoreplication is (still) a problem. J. Com. Psychol. 123, 450–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017031 (2009).
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J. & Kenny, D. A. Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347 (2012).
pubmed: 22612667
Lee, O. E. & Braun, T. M. Permutation tests for random effects in linear mixed models. Biometrics 68, 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01675.x (2012).
pubmed: 21950470
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J. & Bates, D. M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J. Mem. Lang 59, 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 (2008).
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J. Mem. Lang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 (2013).
pubmed: 24403724
pmcid: 3881361
Blainey, P., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. Points of significance: Replication. Nat. Methods 11, 879–880. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3091 (2014).
pubmed: 25317452
Drubin, D. G. Great science inspires us to tackle the issue of data reproducibility. Mol. Biol. Cell 26, 3679–3680. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E15-09-0643 (2015).
pubmed: 26515968
pmcid: 4626049
Amrhein, V., Greenland, S. & McShane, B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 567, 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9 (2019).
pubmed: 30894741
Cohen, J. The earth is round (p <.05). Am. Psychol. 49, 997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997 (1994).
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Tarone, R. & McLaughlin, J. K. The false-positive to false-negative ratio in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology 22, 450–456. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e31821b506e (2011).
pubmed: 21490505
Sullivan, G. M. & Feinn, R. Using effect size-or why the P value Is not enough. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 4, 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1 (2012).
pubmed: 23997866
pmcid: 3444174
Brysbaert, M. & Stevens, M. Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. J. Cogn. 1, 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10 (2018).
pubmed: 31517183
pmcid: 6646942
Kline, R. B. Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Am. Psychol. Associat. https://doi.org/10.1037/10693-000 (2024).
Rosner, Bernard (Bernard A.). Fundamentals of biostatistics. (Boston, Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2011).
Bromage, E., Carpenter, L., Kaattari, S. & Patterson, M. Quantification of coral heat shock proteins from individual coral polyps. Mar. Ecol. Progress Ser. 376, 123–132 (2009).