4.7 Article

Triqler for Protein Summarization of Data from Data-Independent Acquisition Mass Spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 1359-1366

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.2c00607

关键词

mass spectrometry; protein summarization; Bayesian hierarchical modelling; label-free quantification; data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry; benchmark; mathematical methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A common goal in quantitative shotgun proteomics experiments is to identify proteins that show differential abundance under specific experimental conditions. However, this is challenging as mass spectrometry analyzes protein fragments rather than intact proteins. In this study, we demonstrate that a Bayesian hierarchical probabilistic model called Triqler can be adapted for data-independent acquisition (DIA) data after making minor changes to account for missing values. Furthermore, we show that Triqler outperforms other state-of-the-art protein summarization tools when evaluated on DIA data.
A frequent goal, or subgoal, when processing data from a quantitative shotgun proteomics experiment is a list of proteins that are differentially abundant under the examined experimental conditions. Unfortunately, obtaining such a list is a challenging process, as the mass spectrometer analyzes the proteolytic peptides of a protein rather than the proteins themselves. We have previously designed a Bayesian hierarchical probabilistic model, Triqler, for combining peptide identification and quantification errors into probabilities of proteins being differentially abundant. However, the model was developed for data from data-dependent acquisition. Here, we show that Triqler is also compatible with data-independent acquisition data after applying minor alterations for the missing value distribution. Furthermore, we find that it has better performance than a set of compared state-of-the-art protein summarization tools when evaluated on data-independent acquisition data.

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