Skip to main content
. 2021 Nov 20;21(1):100180. doi: 10.1016/j.mcpro.2021.100180

Table 3.

Verification of μDIA untargeted proteomics quantification by targeted PRM-MS

Gene μDIA fold-change PRM fold-change p-value μDIA p-value PRM
Fabp7 1.95 1.88 1.47E-06 3.13E-03
Slc6a11 −1.57 −2.44 6.96E-06 2.64E-04
Slc4a4 −1.43 −2.16 3.36E-05 1.23E-02
Slc38a3 −1.52 −1.29 1.27E-04 1.37E-01
Gpr37l1 −1.67 downregulated 2.60E-03 2.29E-06
Nadk2 2.58 2.57 2.24E-05 6.07E-04
Sfxn5 −1.38 −1.38 8.63E-03 1.40E-03
Fasn −1.49 −1.68 4.68E-05 6.67E-03
Ugt8 −4.28 −3.71 9.16E-05 2.74E-03
Mbp −1.46 −2.16 1.67E-02 7.17E-03
Ntrk2 −1.74 not detected 2.48E-02 not detected
Slc27a1 1.41 1.94 8.11E-02 1.67E-02
Acot1 1.53 1.43 8.26E-04 1.49E-02
Acsl6 −1.49 −1.88 1.46E-03 4.91E-02
Slc25a18 −1.55 −1.20 2.24E-03 4.16E-01
Ca2 −1.31 −1.41 5.37E-03 3.45E-02
∗Slc6a17 −1.07 −1.45 2.09E-01 2.44E-01
∗Stxbp5l −1.16 −1.17 1.17E-01 4.59E-01
∗Cryl1 1.18 −1.14 2.56E-01 4.88E-01
∗Slc16a1 −1.15 −1.15 1.44E-01 1.49E-01

Comparison of the average fold-change ratio of proteins in (GFAPTg;Gfap+/R236H/wild-type mice) and associated p-values in the μDIA versus PRM-MS experiments for 20 proteins selected for confirmation (n = 4 per genotype in both experiments). (∗) indicates proteins designated as negative controls with insignificant p-values from μDIA untargeted proteomics and PRM-MS. The “downregulated” result indicates the protein was only detectable in wild-type mice.