4.7 Article

XLSearch: a Probabilistic Database Search Algorithm for Identifying Cross-Linked Peptides

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 1830-1841

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00004

关键词

mass spectrometry; chemical cross-linking; machine learning; structural biology; ribosome

资金

  1. NIH [R01GM103725]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical cross-linking combined with mass spectrometric analysis has become an important technique for probing protein three-dimensional structure and protein protein interactions. A key step in this process is the accurate identification and validation of cross-linked peptides from tandem mass spectra. The identification of cross-linked peptides, however, presents challenges related to the expanded nature of the search space (all pairs of peptides in a sequence database) and the fact that some peptide-spectrum matches (PSMs) contain one correct and one incorrect peptide but often receive scores that are comparable to those in which both peptides are correctly identified. To address these problems and improve detection of cross-linked peptides, we propose a new database search algorithm, XLSearch, for identifying cross-linked peptides. Our approach is based on a data-driven scoring scheme that independently estimates the probability of correctly identifying each individual peptide in the cross-link given knowledge of the correct or incorrect identification of the other peptide. These conditional probabilities are subsequently used to estimate the joint posterior probability that both peptides are correctly identified. Using the data from two previous cross-link studies, we show the effectiveness of this scoring scheme, particularly in distinguishing between true identifications and those containing one incorrect peptide. We also provide evidence that XLSearch achieves more identifications than two alternative methods at the same false discovery rate (availability: https://github.com/COL-IU/XLSearch).

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