Table I. For each metal condition, protein quantification was database independent. Only proteins identified in all three databases were compared under each condition.

Micronutrient status		Number of significant changesa	Total number of proteins comparedb	Percentage of significant changes	Average % changec
Metal	μm in medium	Au10.2 vs. FM3.1
Cu	0	24	839	2.9	16
	2	20	782	2.6	17
Zn	0	31	692	4.5	16
	2.5	15	625	2.4	15
Fe	0.25	14	434	3.2	14
	1	17	534	3.2	14
	20	21	553	3.8	14
Mn	0	2	418	0.5	14
	0.05	8	404	2.0	14
	2	6	408	1.5	16
		Au10.2 vs. FM4
Cu	0	12	833	1.4	12
	2	14	791	1.8	13
Zn	0	21	692	3.0	15
	2.5	7	625	1.1	14
Fe	0.25	8	434	1.8	14
	1	11	534	2.1	13
	20	31	553	5.6	18
Mn	0	4	418	0.96	16
	0.05	11	404	2.72	15
	2	4	408	0.98	15
		FM3.1 vs. FM4
Cu	0	14	839	1.7	15
	2	14	796	1.8	16
Zn	0	24	692	3.5	17
	2.5	15	625	2.4	16
Fe	0.25	10	434	2.3	16
	1	22	534	4.1	16
	20	29	553	5.2	19
Mn	0	5	418	1.2	18
	0.05	10	404	2.5	17
	2	7	408	1.7	19

^a Significance determined by Student's t-test with a 95% confidence interval.

^b Proteins were selected for comparison only if identified using all three databases.

^c Calculated as (Average abundance_Database1 − Average abundance_Database2)/(Average abundance_{all values}).