Literature DB >> 18092908

Experiment-specific estimation of peptide identification probabilities using a randomized database.

Roger Higdon1, Jason M Hogan, Natali Kolker, Gerald van Belle, Eugene Kolker.   

Abstract

Determining the error rate for peptide and protein identification accurately and reliably is necessary to enable evaluation and crosscomparisons of high throughput proteomics experiments. Currently, peptide identification is based either on preset scoring thresholds or on probabilistic models trained on datasets that are often dissimilar to experimental results. The false discovery rates (FDR) and peptide identification probabilities for these preset thresholds or models often vary greatly across different experimental treatments, organisms, or instruments used in specific experiments. To overcome these difficulties, randomized databases have been used to estimate the FDR. However, the cumulative FDR may include low probability identifications when there are a large number of peptide identifications and exclude high probability identifications when there are few. To overcome this logical inconsistency, this study expands the use of randomized databases to generate experiment-specific estimates of peptide identification probabilities. These experiment-specific probabilities are generated by logistic and Loess regression models of the peptide scores obtained from original and reshuffled database matches. These experiment-specific probabilities are shown to very well approximate "true" probabilities based on known standard protein mixtures across different experiments. Probabilities generated by the earlier Peptide_Prophet and more recent LIPS models are shown to differ significantly from this study's experiment-specific probabilities, especially for unknown samples. The experiment-specific probabilities reliably estimate the accuracy of peptide identifications and overcome potential logical inconsistencies of the cumulative FDR. This estimation method is demonstrated using a Sequest database search, LIPS model, and a reshuffled database. However, this approach is generally applicable to any search algorithm, peptide scoring, and statistical model when using a randomized database.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18092908     DOI: 10.1089/omi.2007.0040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  OMICS        ISSN: 1536-2310


  12 in total

1.  Meta-analysis for protein identification: a case study on yeast data.

Authors:  Roger Higdon; Winston Haynes; Eugene Kolker
Journal:  OMICS       Date:  2010-06

2.  Accurate Estimation of Context-Dependent False Discovery Rates in Top-Down Proteomics.

Authors:  Richard D LeDuc; Ryan T Fellers; Bryan P Early; Joseph B Greer; Daniel P Shams; Paul M Thomas; Neil L Kelleher
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 5.911

3.  MOPED enables discoveries through consistently processed proteomics data.

Authors:  Roger Higdon; Elizabeth Stewart; Larissa Stanberry; Winston Haynes; John Choiniere; Elizabeth Montague; Nathaniel Anderson; Gregory Yandl; Imre Janko; William Broomall; Simon Fishilevich; Doron Lancet; Natali Kolker; Eugene Kolker
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 4.466

Review 4.  DIGE and iTRAQ as biomarker discovery tools in aquatic toxicology.

Authors:  Christopher J Martyniuk; Sophie Alvarez; Nancy D Denslow
Journal:  Ecotoxicol Environ Saf       Date:  2011-11-05       Impact factor: 6.291

5.  Design and initial characterization of the SC-200 proteomics standard mixture.

Authors:  Andrew Bauman; Roger Higdon; Sean Rapson; Brenton Loiue; Jason Hogan; Robin Stacy; Alberto Napuli; Wenjin Guo; Wesley van Voorhis; Jared Roach; Vincent Lu; Elizabeth Landorf; Elizabeth Stewart; Natali Kolker; Frank Collart; Peter Myler; Gerald van Belle; Eugene Kolker
Journal:  OMICS       Date:  2011-01-21

6.  Competition between PARP-1 and Ku70 control the decision between high-fidelity and mutagenic DNA repair.

Authors:  M N Paddock; A T Bauman; R Higdon; E Kolker; S Takeda; A M Scharenberg
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2011-01-20

7.  Paramecium bursaria chlorella virus 1 proteome reveals novel architectural and regulatory features of a giant virus.

Authors:  David D Dunigan; Ronald L Cerny; Andrew T Bauman; Jared C Roach; Leslie C Lane; Irina V Agarkova; Kurt Wulser; Giane M Yanai-Balser; James R Gurnon; Jason C Vitek; Bernard J Kronschnabel; Adrien Jeanniard; Guillaume Blanc; Chris Upton; Garry A Duncan; O William McClung; Fangrui Ma; James L Van Etten
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 5.103

8.  Decoy methods for assessing false positives and false discovery rates in shotgun proteomics.

Authors:  Guanghui Wang; Wells W Wu; Zheng Zhang; Shyama Masilamani; Rong-Fong Shen
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 6.986

Review 9.  The promise of multi-omics and clinical data integration to identify and target personalized healthcare approaches in autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Roger Higdon; Rachel K Earl; Larissa Stanberry; Caitlin M Hudac; Elizabeth Montague; Elizabeth Stewart; Imre Janko; John Choiniere; William Broomall; Natali Kolker; Raphael A Bernier; Eugene Kolker
Journal:  OMICS       Date:  2015-04

10.  Lapatinib-binding protein kinases in the African trypanosome: identification of cellular targets for kinase-directed chemical scaffolds.

Authors:  Samiksha Katiyar; Irina Kufareva; Ranjan Behera; Sarah M Thomas; Yuko Ogata; Michael Pollastri; Ruben Abagyan; Kojo Mensa-Wilmot
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.