It felt like we went in a very short time from no stats for proteomics (some of the fancy nerds always had stats, supposedly) to too many downstream statistical tools to keep track of.
In a scenario where someone says "did you run this test" and you suspect they are implying that you should know what it is and have ran that test -- even assuming you knew what they were talking about (you're a mass spec wizard, you can use that as evidence that you obviously know all the things or as justification for why you don't know things that everyone else seems to. I am personally far more comfortable with the latter. For example "why did it take 5 years of red "urgent" letters in your mailbox for you to realize that you live in a state where there are state AND "local" taxes?"
Really? I assumed that was rhetorical.
1) I'm not going to just open any red envelope addressed to me that says "urgent" on it that is addressed from a lady named Bambi. No offense to anyone named Bambi out there, but red is a weird color for an envelope.
2) I turn solids and liquids into gas and fire that I manipulate in vacuum chambers to do my bidding to understand how BIOLOGY and life itself works. That sounds like a slightly better use of my time than opening red envelopes, right?
StatsPro is like this shortcut guide to taking your data and making SAM supervise his LEMUR and a bunch of other things that are mostly 2 people's long names.
Also, StatsPro was developed on Proteome Discoverer output data. And most of the tools out there require that you move column names around to match MaxQuant output to process them!
You can try StatsPro out here!