Percy, Andrew J.Tamura-Wells, JessicaAlbar, Juan PabloAloria, KermanAmirkhani, ArdeshirAraújo, Gabriel D.T.Arizmendi, Jesús M.Blanco García, Francisco JCanals, FrancescCho, Jin-YoungColomé-Calls, NúriaCorrales, Fernando J.Domont, GilbertoEspadas, GuadalupeFernández-Puente, PatriciaGil, ConchaHaynes, Paul A.Hernáez, María LuisaKim, Jin YoungKopylov, Arthur T.Marcilla, MiguelMcKay, Mathew J.Mirzaei, MehdiMolloy, Mark P.Ohlund, Leanne B.Paik, Young-KiParadela, AlbertoRaftery, MarkSabidó, EduardSleno, LekhaWilffert, DanielWolters, Justina C.Yoo, Jong ShinZgoda, Victor G.Parker, Carol E.Borchers, Christoph H.2026-08-252026-08-252015-06-11Percy AJ, Tamura-Wells J, Albar JP, Aloria K, Amirkhani A, Araujo GD, et al. Inter-laboratory evaluation of instrument platforms and experimental workflows for quantitative accuracy and reproducibility assessment. EuPA Open Proteom. 2015 Sep;8:6-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.euprot.2015.06.0012212-9685https://hdl.handle.net/2183/49089[Abstract] The reproducibility of plasma protein quantitation between laboratories and between instrument types was examined in a large-scale international study involving 16 laboratories and 19 LC-MS/MS platforms, using two kits designed to evaluate instrument performance and one kit designed to evaluate the entire bottom-up workflow. There was little effect of instrument type on the quality of the results, demonstrating the robustness of LC/MRM-MS with isotopically labeled standards. Technician skill was a factor, as errors in sample preparation and sub-optimal LC-MS performance were evident. This highlights the importance of proper training and routine quality control before quantitation is done on patient samples.engAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/AccuracyHuman plasmaQuality controlQuantitative proteomicsReproductibilityWorkflow validationjournal articleopen access10.1016/J.EUPROT.2015.06.001