Diverse forms of unwanted signal variations in mass spectrometry-based metabolomics data adversely affect the accuracies of metabolic profiling. A variety of normalization methods have been developed for addressing this problem. However, their performances vary greatly and depend heavily on the nature of the studied data. Moreover, given the complexity of the actual data, it is not feasible to assess the performance of methods by single criterion. We therefore developed NOREVA to enable performance evaluation of various normalization methods from multiple perspectives. NOREVA integrated five well-established criteria (each with a distinct underlying theory) to ensure more comprehensive evaluation than any single criterion. It provided the most complete set of the available normalization methods, with unique features of removing overall unwanted variations based on quality control metabolites and allowing quality control samples based correction sequentially followed by data normalization. The originality of NOREVA and the reliability of its algorithms were extensively validated by case studies on five benchmark datasets. In sum, NOREVA is distinguished for its capability of identifying the well performed normalization method by taking multiple criteria into consideration and can be an indispensable complement to other available tools. NOREVA can be freely accessed at http://server.idrb.cqu.edu.cn/noreva/.

In untargeted metabolomics analysis, several factors (e.g., unwanted experimental & biological variations and technical errors) may hamper the identification of differential metabolic features, which requires the data-driven normalization approaches before feature selection. So far, ≥16 normalization methods have been widely applied for processing the LC/MS based metabolomics data. However, the performance and the sample size dependence of those methods have not yet been exhaustively compared and no online tool for comparatively and comprehensively evaluating the performance of all 16 normalization methods has been provided. In this study, a comprehensive comparison on these methods was conducted. As a result, 16 methods were categorized into three groups based on their normalization performances across various sample sizes. TheVSN, theLog Transformationand thePQNwere identified as methods of the best normalization performance, while theContrastconsistently underperformed across all sub-datasets of different benchmark data. Moreover, an interactive web tool comprehensively evaluating the performance of 16 methods specifically for normalizing LC/MS based metabolomics data was constructed and hosted athttp://server.idrb.cqu.edu.cn/MetaPre/. In summary, this study could serve as a useful guidance to the selection of suitable normalization methods in analyzing the LC/MS based metabolomics data.

Label-free quantification (LFQ) with a specific and sequentially integrated workflow of acquisition technique, quantification tool and processing method has emerged as the popular technique employed in metaproteomic research to provide a comprehensive landscape of the adaptive response of microbes to external stimuli and their interactions with other organisms or host cells. The performance of a specific LFQ workflow is highly dependent on the studied data. Hence, it is essential to discover the most appropriate one for a specific data set. However, it is challenging to perform such discovery due to the large number of possible workflows and the multifaceted nature of the evaluation criteria. Herein, a web server ANPELA (https://idrblab.org/anpela/) was developed and validated as the first tool enabling performance assessment of whole LFQ workflow (collective assessment by five well-established criteria with distinct underlying theories), and it enabled the identification of the optimal LFQ workflow(s) by a comprehensive performance ranking. ANPELA not only automatically detects the diverse formats of data generated by all quantification tools but also provides the most complete set of processing methods among the available web servers and stand-alone tools. Systematic validation using metaproteomic benchmarks revealed ANPELA’s capabilities in 1 discovering well-performing workflow(s), (2) enabling assessment from multiple perspectives and (3) validating LFQ accuracy using spiked proteins. ANPELA has a unique ability to evaluate the performance of whole LFQ workflow and enables the discovery of the optimal LFQs by the comprehensive performance ranking of all 560 workflows. Therefore, it has great potential for applications in metaproteomic and other studies requiring LFQ techniques, as many features are shared among proteomic studies.

Drugs produce their therapeutic effects by modulating specific targets, and there are 89 innovative targets of first-in-class drugs approved in 2004–17, each with information about drug clinical trial dated back to 1984. Analysis of the clinical trial timelines of these targets may reveal the trial-speed differentiating features for facilitating target assessment. Here we present a comprehensive analysis of all these 89 targets, following the earlier studies for prospective prediction of clinical success of the targets of clinical trial drugs. Our analysis confirmed the literature-reported common druggability characteristics for clinical success of these innovative targets, exposed trial-speed differentiating features associated to the on-target and off-target collateral effects in humans and further revealed a simple rule for identifying the speedy human targets through clinical trials (from the earliest phase I to the 1st drug approval within 8 years). This simple rule correctly identified 75.0% of the 28 speedy human targets and only unexpectedly misclassified 13.2% of 53 non-speedy human targets. Certain extraordinary circumstances were also discovered to likely contribute to the misclassification of some human targets by this simple rule. Investigation and knowledge of trial-speed differentiating features enable prioritized drug discovery and development.

A shared binding mode involving eleven key residues at the S1 site of MATs for the binding of amitifadine is identified.