4.7 Article

Semisupervised model-based validation of peptide identifications in mass spectrometry-based proteomics

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 254-265

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr070542g

关键词

mass spectrometry; peptide identification; protein sequence database searching; statistical validation; semisupervised modeling; decoy sequences

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA126239] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [U54RR020843] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NCI NIH HHS [CA-126239, R01 CA126239] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NCRR NIH HHS [U54 RR020843] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of robust statistical methods for validation of peptide assignments to tandem mass (MS/MS) spectra obtained using database searching remains an important problem. PeptideProphet is one of the commonly used computational tools available for that purpose. An alternative simple approach for validation of peptide assignments is based on addition of decoy (reversed, randomized, or shuffled) sequences to the searched protein sequence database. The probabilistic modeling approach of PeptideProphet and the decoy strategy can be combined within a single semisupervised framework, leading to improved robustness and higher accuracy of computed probabilities even in the case of most challenging data sets. We present a semisupervised expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm for constructing a Bayes classifier for peptide identification using the probability mixture model, extending PeptideProphet to incorporate decoy peptide matches. Using several data sets of varying complexity, from control protein mixtures to a human plasma sample, and using three commonly used database search programs, SEQUEST, MASCOT, and TANDEM/k-score, we illustrate that more accurate mixture estimation leads to an improved control of the false discovery rate in the classification of peptide assignments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据