Abstract
2‐DE is a fundamental technology used in proteomics research. However, despite its high capacity to simultaneously separate several proteins for subsequent identification and quantitative comparison studies, a drawback for this technique is its limited reproducibility, especially when comparing data from different laboratories. 2‐DE‐related variability can be broadly divided into two categories: experimental and post‐experimental. Experimental variability depends on physical and chemical parameters, whereas post‐experimental variability arises when gels are analyzed by different software packages, particularly when different workflows are followed. In this paper, we compared the analysis performance of two software packages, Delta2D and Proteomweaver, using both standard and experimental gel images. Using standard gel images, the false negative spot count was 50% lower, the false positive count was 77% lower, the true positive count was 19% higher and spot matching was 4% higher in Delta2D when compared to Proteomeweaver. Using experimental gel images, we found that the total amount of time taken to complete the analysis with Delta2D was 30% that of the time needed with Proteomweaver and required fewer user interventions. The differences between ease of use and workflow strategy of these programs is discussed.