MOTIVATION: The standard approach to identifying peptides based on accurate mass and elution time (AMT) compares profiles obtained from a high resolution mass spectrometer to a database of peptides previously identified from tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) studies. It would be advantageous, with respect to both accuracy and cost, to only search for those peptides that are detectable by MS (proteotypic). RESULTS: We present a support vector machine (SVM) model that uses a simple descriptor space based on 35 properties of amino acid content, charge, hydrophilicity and polarity for the quantitative prediction of proteotypic peptides. Using three independently derived AMT databases (Shewanella oneidensis, Salmonella typhimurium, Yersinia pestis) for training and validation within and across species, the SVM resulted in an average accuracy measure of approximately 0.83 with an SD of <0.038. Furthermore, we demonstrate that these results are achievable with a small set of 13 variables and can achieve high proteome coverage. AVAILABILITY: http://omics.pnl.gov/software/STEPP.php CONTACT: bj@pnl.gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
MOTIVATION: The standard approach to identifying peptides based on accurate mass and elution time (AMT) compares profiles obtained from a high resolution mass spectrometer to a database of peptides previously identified from tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) studies. It would be advantageous, with respect to both accuracy and cost, to only search for those peptides that are detectable by MS (proteotypic). RESULTS: We present a support vector machine (SVM) model that uses a simple descriptor space based on 35 properties of amino acid content, charge, hydrophilicity and polarity for the quantitative prediction of proteotypic peptides. Using three independently derived AMT databases (Shewanella oneidensis, Salmonella typhimurium, Yersinia pestis) for training and validation within and across species, the SVM resulted in an average accuracy measure of approximately 0.83 with an SD of <0.038. Furthermore, we demonstrate that these results are achievable with a small set of 13 variables and can achieve high proteome coverage. AVAILABILITY: http://omics.pnl.gov/software/STEPP.php CONTACT: bj@pnl.gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Authors: Boris Reidel; J Will Thompson; Sina Farsiu; M Arthur Moseley; Nikolai P Skiba; Vadim Y Arshavsky Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Tara K Sigdel; Yuqian Gao; Jintang He; Anyou Wang; Carrie D Nicora; Thomas L Fillmore; Tujin Shi; Bobbie-Jo Webb-Robertson; Richard D Smith; Wei-Jun Qian; Oscar Salvatierra; David G Camp; Minnie M Sarwal Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Claire E Eyers; Craig Lawless; David C Wedge; King Wai Lau; Simon J Gaskell; Simon J Hubbard Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Ulrike Kusebauch; Eric W Deutsch; David S Campbell; Zhi Sun; Terry Farrah; Robert L Moritz Journal: Curr Protoc Bioinformatics Date: 2014-06-17
Authors: Nicolas L Taylor; Ricarda Fenske; Ian Castleden; Tiago Tomaz; Clark J Nelson; A Harvey Millar Journal: Plant Physiol Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 8.340
Authors: Bobbie-Jo M Webb-Robertson; Melissa M Matzke; Thomas O Metz; Jason E McDermott; Hyunjoo Walker; Karin D Rodland; Joel G Pounds; Katrina M Waters Journal: Biotechniques Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 1.993
Authors: Elena S Peterson; Lee Ann McCue; Alexandra C Schrimpe-Rutledge; Jeffrey L Jensen; Hyunjoo Walker; Markus A Kobold; Samantha R Webb; Samuel H Payne; Charles Ansong; Joshua N Adkins; William R Cannon; Bobbie-Jo M Webb-Robertson Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 3.969