4.8 Article

A hypergeometric probability model for protein identification and validation using tandem mass spectral data and protein sequence databases

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 75, 期 15, 页码 3792-3798

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac034157w

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a new probability-based method for protein identification using tandem mass spectra and protein databases. The method employs a hypergeometric distribution to model frequencies of matches between fragment ions predicted for peptide sequences with a specific (M + H)(+) value (at some mass tolerance) in a protein sequence database and an experimental tandem mass spectrum. The hypergeometric distribution constitutes null hypothesis-all peptide matches to a tandem mass spectrum are random. It is used to generate a score characterizing the randomness of a database sequence match to an experimental tandem mass spectrum and to determine the level of significance of the null hypothesis. For each tandem mass spectrum and database search, a peptide is identified that has the least probability of being a random match to the spectrum and the corresponding level of significance of the null hypothesis is determined. To check the validity of the hypergeometric model in describing fragment ion matches, we used chi(2) test. The distribution of frequencies and corresponding hypergeometric probabilities are generated for each tandem mass spectrum. No proteolytic cleavage specificity is used to create the peptide sequences from the database. We do not use any empirical probabilities in this method. The scores generated by the hypergeometric model do not have a significant molecular weight bias and are reasonably independent of database size. The approach has been implemented in a database search algorithm, PEP-PROBE By using a large set of tandem mass spectra derived from a set of peptides created by digestion of a collection of known proteins using four different proteases, a false positive rate of 5% is demonstrated.

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

4.8
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