4.7 Article

Accurate peptide fragmentation predictions allow data driven approaches to replace and improve upon proteomics search engine scoring functions

Journal

BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 35, Issue 24, Pages 5243-5248

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz383

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. SBO grant 'InSPECtor' of Flanders Innovation and Entrepeneurship (VLAIO) [120025]
  2. Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO) [G.0425.18N]
  3. MASSTRPLAN Marie Sklodowska-Curie EU Framework for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 [675132]
  4. European Union's Horizon 2020 Program [823839 [H2020-INFRAIA-2018-1], 634402 [PHC32-2014]]
  5. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [675132] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Motivation: The use of post-processing tools to maximize the information gained from a proteomics search engine is widely accepted and used by the community, with the most notable example being Percolator-a semi-supervised machine learning model which learns a new scoring function for a given dataset. The usage of such tools is however bound to the search engine's scoring scheme, which doesn't always make full use of the intensity information present in a spectrum. We aim to show how this tool can be applied in such a way that maximizes the use of spectrum intensity information by leveraging another machine learning-based tool, MS2PIP. MS2PIP predicts fragment ion peak intensities. Results: We show how comparing predicted intensities to annotated experimental spectra by calculating direct similarity metrics provides enough information for a tool such as Percolator to accurately separate two classes of peptide-to-spectrum matches. This approach allows using more information out of the data (compared with simpler intensity based metrics, like peak counting or explained intensities summing) while maintaining control of statistics such as the false discovery rate.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available