4.7 Article

Investigation of Effects of the Spectral Library on Analysis of diaPASEF Data

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 507-518

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.1c00899

关键词

data-independent acquisition; diaPASEF; spectral library

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China for Fostering Talents in Basic Research [J1310027]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [20720190087]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that different spectral libraries with varying proteome coverage can affect the analysis of diaPASEF data. The library-based method generates more precursors and proteins but with a higher percentage of missing values, while the library-free strategy identifies fewer proteins with higher data completeness. Additionally, the library-free strategy leads to similar biological conclusions as the library-based method despite identifying fewer proteins.
Targeted analysis of data-independent acquisition (DIA) data needs a spectral library, which is generated by data-dependent acquisition (DDA) experiments or directly from DIA data. A comparison of the DDA library and DIA library in analyzing DIA data has been reported. However, the effects of different spectral libraries on the analysis of diaPASEF data have not been investigated. Here, we generate different spectral libraries with varying proteome coverage to analyze parallel accumulation-serial fragmentation (diaPASEF) data. Besides, we also employ the library-free strategy. The library, constructed by extensive fractionation DDA experiments, produces the highest numbers of precursors and proteins but with a high percentage of missing values. The library-free strategy identifies 10-20% fewer proteins than the library-based method but with a high degree of data completeness. A further study shows that the library-free strategy, although it identifies fewer proteins than the library-based method, leads to similar biological conclusions as the library-based method.

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