This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Multiomics profiling is a powerful tool to characterize the same samples with complementary features orchestrating the genome, epigenome, transcriptome, proteome, and metabolome. However, the lack of ground truth hampers the objective assessment of and subsequent choice from a plethora of measurement and computational methods aiming to integrate diverse and often enigmatically incomparable omics datasets. Here we establish and characterize the first suites of publicly available multiomics reference materials of matched DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolites derived from immortalized cell lines from a family quartet of parents and monozygotic twin daughters, providing built-in truth defined by family relationship and the central dogma. We demonstrate that the “ratio”-based omics profiling data, i.e ., by scaling the absolute feature values of a study sample relative to those of a concurrently measured universal reference sample, were inherently much more reproducible and comparable across batches, labs, platforms, and omics types, thus empower the horizontal (within-omics) and vertical (cross-omics) data integration in multiomics studies. Our study identifies “absolute” feature quantitation as the root cause of irreproducibility in multiomics measurement and data integration, and urges a paradigm shift from “absolute” to “ratio"-based multiomics profiling with universal reference materials.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zheng et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: