4.5 Article

A two-step database search method improves sensitivity in peptide sequence matches for metaproteomics and proteogenomics studies

Journal

PROTEOMICS
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages 1352-1357

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201200352

Keywords

Bioinformatics; Mass spectrometry; Metaproteomics; Proteogenomics; Sequence database search; Two-step workflow

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (US) [1R01 DE17734]
  2. NSF [1147079]
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [1147079] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Large databases (>106 sequences) used in metaproteomic and proteogenomic studies present challenges in matching peptide sequences to MS/MS data using database-search programs. Most notably, strict filtering to avoid false-positive matches leads to more false negatives, thus constraining the number of peptide matches. To address this challenge, we developed a two-step method wherein matches derived from a primary search against a large database were used to create a smaller subset database. The second search was performed against a target-decoy version of this subset database merged with a host database. High confidence peptide sequence matches were then used to infer protein identities. Applying our two-step method for both metaproteomic and proteogenomic analysis resulted in twice the number of high confidence peptide sequence matches in each case, as compared to the conventional one-step method. The two-step method captured almost all of the same peptides matched by the one-step method, with a majority of the additional matches being false negatives from the one-step method. Furthermore, the two-step method improved results regardless of the database search program used. Our results show that our two-step method maximizes the peptide matching sensitivity for applications requiring large databases, especially valuable for proteogenomics and metaproteomics studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available