{"id":95,"date":"2011-04-28T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-28T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/2011\/04\/efficiency-through-analysis.html"},"modified":"2013-01-31T10:47:13","modified_gmt":"2013-01-31T15:47:13","slug":"efficiency_through_analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/2011\/04\/efficiency_through_analysis.html","title":{"rendered":"Efficiency through analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"

The May Editorial<\/a> in Nature Methods<\/em> discusses how the overall efficiency of research can be improved by comparative analysis of research method and tool performance.<\/p>\n

Although such analysis studies aren\u2019t considered as \u2018sexy\u2019 as basic exploratory research, the benefits for and gratitude from the community can be profound. Large well-funded laboratories are more likely to have the resources to perform such analyses and should not discount the advantages to performing such studies and publishing the results.<\/p>\n

Nature Methods<\/em> has published several such analysis studies in the past. A (probably incomplete) selection is listed below. We will strive to publish even more in the future. Our \u2018Analysis\u2019 article type is actually dedicated to these kinds of studies. We encourage communities and labs to both contribute such analyses and suggest methodological areas that would benefit from them. The selection below may provide some inspiration.<\/p>\n

2005<\/strong>
\nMultiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth756<\/a>
\nIndependence and reproducibility across microarry platforms
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth757<\/a>
\nComparative evaluation of mass spectrometry platforms used in large-scale proteomics investigations
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth785<\/a><\/p>\n

2006<\/strong>
\nA guide to choosing fluorescent proteins
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth819<\/a><\/p>\n

2007<\/strong>
\nReproducible isolation of distinct, overlapping segments of the phosphoproteome
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth1005<\/a>
\nUse of simulated data sets to evaluate the fidelity of metagenomic processing methods
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth1043<\/a><\/p>\n

2008<\/strong>
\nCyclic nucleotide analogs as probes of signaling pathways
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth0408-277<\/a><\/p>\n

2009<\/strong>
\nCost-effective strategies for completing the interactome
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth.1283<\/a>
\nA HUPO<\/span> test sample study reveals common problems in mass spectrometry-based proteomics
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth.1333<\/a><\/p>\n

2010<\/strong>
\nComprehensive comparative analysis of strand-specific RNA<\/span> sequencing methods
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth.1491<\/a>
\nMicrobial community resemblance methods differ in their ability to detect biologically relevant patterns
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth.1499<\/a>
\nValidation of two ribosomal RNA<\/span> removal methods for microbial metatranscriptomics
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth.1507<\/a><\/p>\n

2011<\/strong>
\nChemically defined conditions for human iPSC derivation and culture
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth.1593<\/a>
\nTwo-photon absorption properties of fluorescent proteins
\ndoi:10.1038\/nmeth.1596<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The May Editorial in Nature Methods discusses how the overall efficiency of research can be improved by comparative analysis of research method and tool performance.  Read more<\/a> Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":98,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,3],"tags":[27,90],"class_list":["post-95","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-editorials","category-nature-methods-papers","tag-analysis","tag-method-development"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/98"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=95"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/methagora\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}