Why BGPT?
logo

Analyze What Papers Actually Reported

Work with exact reported results from versioned evidence records β€” no guessing from summaries.Know what the science actually supports before you trust the answer.

Press Enter ↡ to analyze


     Quick Analysis Plan



    A rigorous transcriptome-proteome correlation analysis pipeline should: (1) normalize RNA-seq (DESeq2/limma) and proteomics (MaxQuant/Spectronaut, FDR <1%) data separately, (2) map gene/protein identifiers to shared orthologs, (3) compute Pearson/Spearman correlations on log2 abundances across matched conditions, and (4) use nine-quadrant and PPI/hub analyses to distinguish concordant from post-transcriptionally decoupled genes. Published correlations in bacteria span r = 0.46–0.72 depending on species and stress, so expect substantial post-transcriptional regulation and do not assume 1:1 mRNA-protein concordance


     Long Analysis Plan



    Best Plan: Transcriptome-Proteome Correlation Analysis

    Step 1 β€” Normalize each omics layer independently. RNA-seq: QC with fastp/fastp-like tools, align (HISAT2/STAR), quantify (RSEM/featureCounts), normalize with DESeq2 VST or limma-voom. Proteomics: use MaxQuant (LFQ) or Spectronaut (DIA) with 1% FDR, normalize with VSN/quantile/Loess via NormalyzerDE, then limma for differential abundance .

    Step 2 β€” Map identifiers to a shared feature space. Convert gene IDs, protein IDs, and UniProt accessions to a common ortholog/ensembl key; retain only features quantified in both datasets. Account for protein isoforms (many-to-one mapping) and housekeeping-gene overlap.

    Step 3 β€” Compute correlations. Calculate Pearson and Spearman correlations on log2-transformed, matched-sample abundances. Report per-condition and per-gene correlations. Publish reports show typical ranges of r = 0.46–0.72 across bacterial species/stresses, with osmotic stress producing the strongest decoupling .

    Step 4 β€” Nine-quadrant and hub analysis. Plot log2FC(protein) vs log2FC(mRNA); classify genes into concordant up/down, protein-only, mRNA-only, and discordant quadrants . Build STRING/Cytoscape PPI networks from concordant and hub genes (e.g., CytoHubba).

    Step 5 β€” Interpret discordance. Low correlation indicates post-transcriptional or post-translational regulation β€” not failure. Validate key discordant genes by qRT-PCR and targeted proteomics; consider ribosome profiling or polysome assays to test translation-level control .

    Known pitfalls: incomplete proteome coverage (32–48% of CDSs in bacteria) biases correlation; mismatched timepoints confound; correlative findings require functional validation for causal inference .

    Reported benchmark ranges (not simulated) from a 3-species, 11-condition stress study .



    Feedback:    

    Updated: September 07, 2026

     Top Data Sources ExportMCP



     Analysis Wizard



    Building a reproducible Python pipeline that normalizes RNA-seq and proteomics data, maps shared gene identifiers, computes per-condition Pearson/Spearman correlations, and generates nine-quadrant integration plots with uncertainty estimates.



     Hypothesis Graveyard



    'High correlation = good data quality.' Falsified: osmotic stress produces the lowest correlations precisely because meaningful translational regulation is occurring, not because the data are poor.


    'Protein abundance is simply proportional to mRNA abundance.' Falsified across prokaryotes and plants; substantial post-transcriptional regulation yields r = 0.46-0.72 even under baseline conditions.

     Science Art


    correlation between transcriptomic and proteomic Science Art

     Science Movie



    Make a narrated HD Science movie for this answer ($32 per minute)




     Discussion


    Stay current without chasing every paper.

    Know what changed, what holds up, and what remains uncertain. Every Friday. No ads.


    My BGPT