| Literature DB >> 17880728 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many algorithms have been developed for deciphering the tandem mass spectrometry (MS) data sets. They can be essentially clustered into two classes. The first performs searches on theoretical mass spectrum database, while the second based itself on de novo sequencing from raw mass spectrometry data. It was noted that the quality of mass spectra affects significantly the protein identification processes in both instances. This prompted the authors to explore ways to measure the quality of MS data sets before subjecting them to the protein identification algorithms, thus allowing for more meaningful searches and increased confidence level of proteins identified.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17880728 PMCID: PMC2164967 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-352
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Peptide fragmentation. This figure shows various breakage points along a peptide bond and ions are formed in complementary to the N-terminal and C-terminal.
Figure 2Tandem mass spectrum. This figure shows the possible fragmentation on the short peptide AVAGCAGAR and its respective intensity versus m/z mass spectrometry plot.
Scoring of theoretical mass spectrum under different conditions
| 1 | White Gaussian noise level = 0% | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2149 | 4.6542 |
| 2 | White Gaussian noise level = 5% | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2195 | 4.5564 |
| 3 | White Gaussian noise level = 10% | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2162 | 4.6255 |
| 4 | White Gaussian noise level = 15% | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2820 | 3.5467 |
| 5 | White Gaussian noise level = 20% | 910.91 | 1.00 | 0.5616 | 1.7808 |
| 6 | White Gaussian noise level = 25% | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.7875 | 1.2699 |
| 7 | White Gaussian noise level = 30% | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.8570 | 0.9140 |
| 1 | add 10 random peaks, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2150 | 4.6511 |
| 2 | add 20 random peaks, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2153 | 4.6442 |
| 1 | b-ions peaks reduced by 10%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2206 | 4.5330 |
| 2 | b-ions peaks reduced by 20%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2263 | 4.4192 |
| 3 | b-ions peaks reduced by 30%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2360 | 4.2380 |
| 4 | b-ions peaks reduced by 40%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2510 | 3.9842 |
| 5 | b-ions peaks reduced by 50%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2727 | 3.6673 |
| 6 | b-ions peaks reduced by 60%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.3335 | 2.9989 |
| 7 | b-ions peaks reduced by 70%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.4363 | 2.2654 |
| 8 | b-ions peaks reduced by 80%, noise level 1 | NA | - | - | - |
| 1 | y-ions peaks reduced by 10%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2169 | 4.6106 |
| 2 | y-ions peaks reduced by 20%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2198 | 4.5489 |
| 3 | y-ions peaks reduced by 30%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2235 | 4.4740 |
| 4 | y-ions peaks reduced by 40%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2303 | 4.3418 |
| 5 | y-ions peaks reduced by 50%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2435 | 4.1072 |
| 6 | y-ions peaks reduced by 60%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2956 | 3.3824 |
| 7 | y-ions peaks reduced by 70%, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.3926 | 2.5468 |
| 8 | y-ions peaks reduced by 80%, noise level 1 | NA | - | - | - |
| 1 | minus 2 b-ions peaks, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2097 | 4.7692 |
| 2 | minus 4 b-ions peaks, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2320 | 4.3103 |
| 3 | minus 6 b-ions peaks, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.3013 | 3.3190 |
| 4 | minus 8 b-ions peaks, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.3435 | 2.9114 |
| 5 | minus 10 b-ions peaks, noise level 1 | NA | - | - | - |
| 1 | minus 2 y-ions peaks, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.2512 | 3.9813 |
| 2 | minus 4 y-ions peaks, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.3027 | 3.3041 |
| 3 | minus 6 y-ions peaks, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.3810 | 2.6245 |
| 4 | minus 8 y-ions peaks, noise level 1 | 910.92 | 1.00 | 0.4432 | 2.2562 |
| 5 | minus 10 y-ions peaks, noise level 1 | NA | - | - | - |
In our work, we tested the qualitative measurement of the tandem mass spectra based on different noise intensities (Sec. A), additional spurious peaks (Sec. B), different b-ion intensities (Sec. C), different y-ion intensities (Sec. D), different percentage loss of b-ion (Sec. E), and different percentage loss of y-ion (Sec. F). We observed the drop in score as the quality of the theoretical mass spectrum deteriorates.
Figure 3Plot of QS versus ion intensity reduction. This figure shows the effect of reduction in ion intensity on the QS score.
Figure 4Plot of self-convolution of experimental mass spectrum. This figure shows the actual mass spectrum (left) and its respective self-convolution result (right). A high mid-point intensity might not indicate a good quality spectrum as a product of two high intensity peaks could generate it by chance.
Figure 5Pre-processing of ion peaks intensities. This figure shows a plot of the experimental tandem MS (left) and the newly generated mass spectrum after being pre-processed (right).
Figure 6DC-shifted self-convolution plot of experimental tandem MS. This figure shows the difference between the DC-shifted self-convolution results obtained from the original mass spectrum (left) and the pre-processed mass spectrum (right).
Figure 7Self-convolution plot for noise amplitude = 1. This figure shows the result of self-convolution when noise peaks of amplitude 1 is added to the theoretical tandem MS.
Figure 8Self-convolution plot for noise amplitude = 10. This figure shows the result of self-convolution when noise peaks of amplitude 10 is added to the theoretical tandem MS.
Figure 9DC-shifted self-convolution plot for noise amplitude = 1 and 10. This figure shows the DC-shifted self-convolution results of theoretical tandem MS with noise amplitude = 1 (left) and noise amplitude = 10 (right).
Figure 10Qualitative measurement of spectrum quality.
Figure 11DC-shifted self-convolution of good quality mass spectrum.